This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use:

• This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given.

Demeter in Hellenistic Poetry: Religion and Poetics

Maria Constantinou

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to

Classics Department School of History, Classics and Archaeology The University of Edinburgh 2014

Declaration

This thesis has been composed by the candidate, the work is the candidate’s own and the work has not been submitted for the award of any other degree or professional qualification.

ii

Abstract

The thesis examines the presence of Demeter in Hellenistic poetry, while it also considers the way contemporary Demeter cult informs the poetic image of the goddess. My research focuses on certain poems in which Demeter is in the foreground, that is, Philitas’ Demeter, Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, Theocritus’

Idyll 7, and Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter, supplemented by the epilogue of

Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo and Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter. The first part of my study is dedicated to the presentation of the evidence for Demeter’s role in the religious life of places that are directly or indirectly associated with the poems I discuss, that is, Egypt, Cyrene, Cos and Cnidus, in order to establish the cultic and historical framework within which Demeter’s literary figure appears. In the second part I closely examine the poems that feature Demeter and conclude that the goddess and motifs closely linked with her have poetological significance, which supports the view that Demeter functions as a symbol of poetics. Furthermore, I examine the social elements in the narrative of the most extant Hellenistic poem on Demeter, i.e.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, and propose that these reflect Demeter’s role as a

‘social’ goddess.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to people who have contributed to the completion of this thesis. First and foremost, I am indebted to my parents for the constant encouragement and support they offered me all these years; without them this thesis would not have been possible. I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr.

Stephanie Winder, not only for her academic supervision and guidance, but also for her patience, understanding, moral and intellectual support throughout my MSc and

PhD studies. I would also like to express my appreciation to my secondary supervisors, Dr. Richard Rawles and Prof. Douglas Cairns for their encouragement and their useful comments. Morever, I owe thanks to the School of History, Classics and Archaeology of the University of Edinburgh for the funding it provided, both for my Master’s and PhD studies, and for giving me the opportunity to teach at tutorial level, which proved to be a rewarding experience. Furthermore, I would like to thank my thesis examiners, Prof. Gregory Hutchinson and Dr. Donncha O’ Rourke, for their invaluable feedback and advice for a future publication of my thesis. Finally, I am grateful to my friend and colleague Chrysanthi for her continuous encouragement and willingness to read my work, my friend and colleague Lavinia for the support and the constructive discussions on ancient Greek religion and archaeology, as well as my friends Lisa, Stella, Georgia, Petros and Vania for their moral and practical help, especially in the final stages of my PhD.

iv

Contents

Declaration………………………………………………………………… ii

Abstract…………………………………………………………………..... iii

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………… iv

Abbreviations…………………………………………………………….... 1

Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 3

Part I: Demeter in Cult…………………………………………………… 6

Chapter 1: Demeter in Egypt…………………………………………… 7

Chapter 2: Demeter in Cyrene………………………………………….. 39

Chapter 3: Demeter on Cos and Cnidus………………………………… 46

Part II: Demeter in Poetry…………………………………………………. 65

Chapter 4: A Network of Poems on Demeter: Callimachus, Philicus, Philitas and Theocritus……………………………………… 66

Chapter 5: Demeter and Poetics………………………………………… 112

Chapter 6: Demeter and Social Boundaries…………………………….. 171

Conclusions……………………………………………………………...... 201

Bibliography……………………………………………………………..... 203

v

Abbreviations

A.-B. Austin, C., Bastianini, G. (2002). (eds). Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia, Milan. Austin Austin, M. M. (2006). The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation2, Cambridge. Burstein Burstein, S. M. (1985). The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII, Cambridge. CA Powell, J. U. (1925). (ed.). Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford. Consbr. Consbruch, M. (1971). Hephaestionis enchiridion cum commentariis veteribus, Stuttgart. D.-K. Diels, H., Kranz, W. (1972). (eds). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker I-III, Berlin. Diehl Diehl, E. (1925). Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, Leipzig. ED Segre, M. (1993). Iscrizioni di Cos, Rome. FGrH Jacoby, F. (1923-1958). (ed.). Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker I-IV, Berlin/Leiden. G.-P. Gow, A. S. F., Page, D. L. (1965). (eds). The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams, Cambridge. Harder Harder, A. (2012). (ed.). Callimachus: Aetia. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary, Oxford. HGK Herzog, R. (1928). Heilige Gesetze von Kos. Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin. IG (1873-). Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin. IK Blümel, W. (1992). Die Inschriften von Knidos I, Bonn. IThraceL Loukopoulou, L. D., Parissaki, M. G., Psoma, S., Zournatzi, A. (2005). Επιγραφές της Θράκης του Αιγαίου: Μεταξύ των Ποταμών Νέστου και Έβρου (Νομοί Ξάνθης, Ροδόπης και Έβρου), Athens. Keil Keil, H. (1874). Grammatici Latini VI, Leipzig. LIMC (1981-). Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Dusseldorf/Munich/Zurich. LSCG Sokolowski, F. (1969). Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Paris. LSJ Liddell, H. G., Scott, R. (1996). A Greek-English Lexicon, Revised and Augmented Throughout by H. S. Jones. Edited with Revised Supplement9, Oxford. M.-W. Merkelbach, R., West, M. L. (1967). (eds). Fragmenta Hesiodea, London. Mass. Massimilla, G. (1996–2010). (ed.). AITIA. Libri primo e secondo, Libro terzo e quarto, Pisa/Rome. Matth. Matthews, V. J. (1996). Antimachus of Colophon. Text and Commentary (Mnemosyne Supplements), Leiden/New York/Cologne. OGIS Dittenberger, W. (1903-1905). (ed.). Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum I-II, Leipzig.

1

PEG Bernabè, A. (1996). Poetae Epici Graeci, Leipzig. Perry Perry, B. E. (1952). (ed). Aesopica. A Series of Texts Relating to Aesop or Ascribed to him or Closely Connected with the Literary Tradition that Bears his Name, Urbana. Pf. Pfeiffer, R. (1949-1953). (ed.). Callimachus I-II, Oxford. PMG Page, D. L. (1962). (ed.). Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford. RE (1893-). Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart/Munich. Roscher Roscher, W. H. (1884-1937). Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, Leipzig. Sb. Sbardella, L. (2000). Filita. Testimonianze e frammenti poetici. Introduzione, edizione e commento, Rome. SEG (1923-). Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Leiden. SGO Merkerbach, R., Stauber, J. (1998-2004). (eds). Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten I-V, Munich/Leipzig. SH Lloyd-Jones, H., Parsons, P. J. (1983). (eds). Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin/New York. Sp. Spanoudakis, K. (2002). Philetas of Cos, Leiden/Boston/Cologne. ThesCRA (2004-2012). Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum I-VIII, Los Angeles. TrGF Snell, B., Kannicht, R., Radt, S. (1971-2009). (eds). Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta I-V, Gottingen. West West, M. L. (1989-1992). (ed.). Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II2, Oxford.

References to ancient authors and ancient works are according to the abbreviations of the Oxford Classical Dictionary4, edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (Oxford 2003), with the exception of Callimachus’ Hymns, which I abbreviate as H. 1, H. 2 etc. For papyri I use the abbreviations of the Duke Data Bank of Documentary Papyri, while for journals I follow the abbreviations of L’Année philologique.

2

Introduction

The topic of the current study is Demeter’s presence in Hellenistic poetry. Demeter’s importance in Hellenistic poetry has been noted by a number of scholars who examined individual poems featuring the goddess,1 while certain studies on

Demeter’s cult in Ptolemaic Egypt have indicated that Demeter held a very prominent role in the religion of the area. Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter in particular has very recently attracted scholarly attention anew, as indicated by the articles of Giuseppetti (2012), Faulkner (2012) and Faraone (2012), each of them dealing with a different aspect of the poem,2 while Demeter’s cult in Ptolemaic

Egypt has been the topic of a detailed treatment by Parca (2007). Nevertheless, the lack of a treatise entirely dedicated to Demeter’s appearance in Hellenistic poetry that understands it within its religious context prevents a full appreciation of her poetic significance.

The present study examines Demeter’s role in Hellenistic poetry through close readings of the Hellenistic poems in which Demeter’s presence is prominent, while it also discusses the religious framework within which these poems are composed, aiming at constructing the poetic image of the Hellenistic Demeter while taking into consideration aspects of her cultic image. The Hellenistic poems on which my research focuses are Philitas’ elegiac poem Demeter, Callimachus’ Hymn

1 Cf. the remark by Giuseppetti (2012), 103: ‘for those interested in exploring the mythic and religious dimensions of Hellenistic poetry, Demeter offers one of the most varied and suggestive subjects of research’. 2 All three of them refer only in passing to Demeter’s metapoetical role. Giuseppetti (2012), 104 n. 2, notes that he deliberately avoids discussing this aspect for it has been thoroughly analysed by other scholars.

3 to Demeter and Theocritus’ Idyll 7, while I also examine the epilogue of

Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo and Philicus’ fragmentary Hymn to Demeter.

My thesis is divided into two parts, each consisting of three chapters. In the first part I discuss Demeter’s role in the cult of certain places that are relevant to the poems I analyse in the second part: chapter 1 discusses the evidence for Demeter’s cult in Ptolemaic Egypt, chapter 2 deals with Demeter’s cult in Cyrene and chapter 3 examines Demeter’s cult on Cos. The choice of the locations is based primarily on the scholarly views regarding possible places of performance of Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, as well as the geographical setting of Philitas’ Demeter and Theocritus’

Idyll 7. Here it is necessary to note that I do not align myself with the view that

Callimachus’ Hymns were composed for the purpose of an actual performance at a specific religious occasion.3 However, unlike Hopkinson who underplayed the significance of scholarly arguments in support of specific perfomative contexts for the Hymn to Demeter,4 I consider that such propositions are indicative of the complexity of the religious and mythological background of Callimachus’ hymn, while they contribute to the appreciation of the poem within its literary context. The same idea applies to Philitas’ Demeter and Theocritus’ Idyll 7, although the geographical context of those two is clearer. The purpose of this section then is to establish the religious background against which the examination of the poems will unfold in the second part. This is not to suggest that I juxtapose details of each poem with elements of the goddess’ cult at a specific place, but rather that I associate

3 The issue of the Hymns’ performance has been greatly discussed. The prevailing view is that they were composed for recitation in front of a learned audience; see Wilamowitz (1924), I 182; Herter (1931), 434; Hopkinson (1984), 37; Mineur (1984), 11-16; Bulloch (1985), 8; Cameron (1995), 63-67; Morrison (2007), 106-109. Contra, Petrovic (2007), 114-171, who has recently re-addressed the issue and argued that the ‘mimetic’ hymns of Callimachus reflect contemporary religious practices where the epiphany of the god (in the form of a cultic object or statue) held an important role 4 Hopkinson (1984), 39: ‘once we are rid of the preconception of h. 6 as a poem for actual performance, these arguments have little force’.

4 aspects of the poetic Demeter with general features of her cult in a way that illuminates her poetic portrayal.

The second part of my study is dedicated to the examination of the Hellenistic poems featuring Demeter. In chapter 4 I present and discuss the poems and by drawing on the elements they share, I conclude that the Hellenistic poems on

Demeter form a poetic network which has Philitas’ Demeter in the centre. Thus, through parallel readings of the poems I trace certain motifs associated with Demeter that occur in all or most of them and thus are important for definition of the goddess’ poetic symbolism. This notion is elaborated in chapter 5, where the poetological implications of the reoccurring motifs are analysed also with regard to their literary background. A basic observation is that traditional motifs of poetological significance come into association with Demeter in the poems in question, which is indicative of the idea that Demeter herself functions on a metapoetical level. As it will be indicated, this role of Demeter is largely indebted to Philitas’ presentation of the goddess in his elegiac poem, but is also supported by the fact that certain aspects of her cult correspond to notions or qualities that are of special importance for the definition of Hellenistic poetics. Thus the overall conclusion of the chapter is that

Demeter is presented as a symbol of new poetics, exemplified in the notions of poetic inclusion and exclusion which have a prevalent role in her cult. The latter notions are important also for my analysis in chapter 6, which deals with the socially informed narrative of Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter. The core of my argument is that the social elements of the hymn are compatible with corresponding aspects of Demeter as a goddess, and thus are indicative of the idea that Callimachus’ poem is not detached from religious reality.

5

Part I: Demeter in Cult

In this part of my thesis I examine Demeter’s role in the cult of certain places to which the most prominent Hellenistic poems dealing with Demeter that I discuss in

Part II are closely related. In the first chapter I thoroughly present and analyse the evidence for Demeter’s cult in Ptolemaic Egypt, an area where Callimachus, Philicus and Philitas composed the greatest part of their poetry as well as the place where

Ptolemaic religious policy is more manifest. In the second chapter I examine the evidence for Demeter’s role in the religious life of Cyrene, a region of prominence for Callimachus and the Ptolemies. Finally, in the third chapter I deal with Demeter’s cult on Cos and Cnidus: Demeter’s cult on Cos is the central theme in Philitas’

Demeter and the framework of Theocritus’ Idyll 7, while Coan associations underlie in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, which also alludes to Demeter’s cult in Cnidus.

The purpose of this section of my thesis is to establish the poems’ religious background, which will contribute to the understanding of specific aspects of the poems and the goddess’ literary persona that I discuss in Part II.5

5 This is not to suggest that I attempt a mechanical correspondence between details in the poems and specific cultic elements; my conclusions are rather more general, dealing with aspects of the goddess.

6

Chapter 1

Demeter in Egypt

Alexander’s conquest of Egypt and the subsequent establishment of the Ptolemaic kingdom were accompanied by the immigration of great numbers of people from various areas of the Greek-speaking world.6 As it was natural for the new colonists to carry with them habits, customs and beliefs they had in their homelands, it is no surprise that cults of certain Greek gods were transferred into the new lands.

However, the multinational and religious multicultural character of the residents of the recently founded big cities, especially Alexandria, allowed only a few cults of

Greek deities to grow. A number of different factors determined each cult’s form and popularity in Egypt; one of them, possibly the most important, was the position it held within the framework of the Ptolemies’ religious policy.7 It is now generally acknowledged that the Ptolemies’ religious program addressed not only the Greek people of Egypt, but also the native population, aiming at maintaining a balance between the two communities.8 For this reason, the gods that were more prominent in

Ptolemaic cult were either Greek deities who bore correspondences with deities of

6 See Clarysse (1998), on the diversity of the people of Hellenic origin who immigrated to Alexandria. 7 On the Ptolemaic religious policy, see Fraser (1972), I 213-246; Koenen (1993); Hölbl (2001), 77- 123. 8 See e.g. Stephens (2003), 12-16.

7 the native Egyptian pantheon and thus appealed also to the indigenous population,9 or those who were created or re-invented with this double audience in mind.10

In this context, Demeter was one of the Greek deities that held a prominent position in the religious life of Ptolemaic Egypt. It is indicative that the most popular theophoric names in Ptolemaic Egypt were those associated with Demeter.11 The reasons for Demeter’s popularity in Egypt are numerous and diverse. The most important was, without doubt, her aspect as an agricultural goddess: she is the one who presides over the fertility of land, which was of great importance for Egypt whose economic base lay in agriculture. At all times in the history of ancient Egypt, the cultivation of land provided the means to the greatest part of the population and was crucial for the state’s finances. Egypt’s proverbial fecundity depended completely upon the Nile’s flood:12 the largest part of arable land was near the Nile

Delta or the Nile Valley, and since the rainfall was very scarce, the state’s main concern was to establish and maintain an irrigation system in order to exploit the

9 For instance, Aphrodite and Dionysus. See p. 27 for Arsinoe and Aphrodite. For Dionysus, see Fraser (1972), I 201-208; Müller (2009), 159-168. 10 For instance, Sarapis and Isis. For Sarapis, see Plut. Mor. De Is. et Os. 362a-e; Tac. Hist. 4.83. Cf. Fraser (1972), I 246-259; Dunant (1973), 45-64; Thompson (1988), 116, 212; Shipley (2000), 165- 166; Hölbl (2001), 99-101. For Isis, see esp. 10-11. 11 See Ronchi (1974), 224-229 for the sources. Cf. Visser (1938), 36-37; Clarysse and Thompson (2006), II 333. There are 56 instances of names deriving from Demeter (mainly Demetrios); Ammon is second with 51 instances and then follows Apollo with 42 and Heracles with 29. The demotic name Θεσμοφόριος is also attested in the papyri, see: SB III 6667 = SEG II 866 (second century BC); UPZ 118.5 (136/83 BC). Cf. Calderini (1975), s.v. ‘Θεσμοφόριος (1)᾿, 269; (1988), 141. 12 Egypt’s fertility and the Nile are praised by Greek authors, e.g.: Aesch. TrGF 3 F 300.5-7: πᾶσα δ’ εὐθαλὴς Αἴγυπτος ἁγνοῦ νάματος πληρουμένη φερέσβιον Δήμητρος ἀντέλλει στάχυν Eur. Hel. 1-3: Νείλου μὲν αἵδε καλλιπάρθενοι ῥοαί, ἀντὶ δίας ψακάδος Αἰγύπτου πέδον λευκῆς τακείσης χιόνος ὑγραίνει γύας Cf. Herodotus’ account on the Egyptians and the Nile (2.14.2), according to which people there live from the land with little labour: they do not need to plough, since the Nile rises and waters their fields for them, they sow the fields but then pigs thresh the grain.

8 water from the flood as efficiently as possible.13 People’s anxiety for the unstable flooding of the Nile and the interrelated fertility of the crops was reflected in the worship of agricultural deities; therefore, it was natural for those who lived in Egypt to turn to Demeter, the Greek agricultural goddess par excellence.

Demeter’s fertility aspect was emphasised in her assimilation with the evidently most important Egyptian goddess at the time, Isis.14 This is the second, equally important and interrelated factor which contributed greatly to the adoption and diffusion of Demeter’s cult in Egypt. Demeter’s assimilation with an Egyptian deity is understood within the framework of the traditional associations between

Greek and Egyptian religions that were cultivated much earlier than the Hellenistic period.15 With regard to Demeter in particular, Greek authors reproduced or reflected

Egyptian traditions which claimed that Demeter’s Attic cult originated in Egypt.16

Herodotus, for instance, reports that the Thesmophoria were transported to Attica from Egypt by the daughters of Danaus,17 while Hecataeus of Abdera, a direct witness of the religious life in Ptolemaic Egypt,18 records in his Aegyptiaca how the

Egyptians claimed that many important Athenian institutions, among them the

13 See Eyre (2010), 292-295, on agriculture as the basis of the economy in Pharaonic Egypt. For agriculture in Ptolemaic Egypt and the role of the Nile, see Manning (2003), 27-30, 72-73; Kehoe (2010), 310-311. 14 Basic treatments of the assimilation of Demeter and Isis are found in the following: Fraser (1972), I 199-201; Tobin (1991); Merkelbach (1995), 51-53 no. 93-96, 60-62 no. 106-108; Pakkanen (1996), passim; Thompson (1998), 705-707; Parca (2007), 197-201. 15 The topic of Egypt’s ‘Hellenization’ by Greek authors had been examined thoroughly by Vasunia (2001). For ancient Greek authors writing on Demeter and Egypt, see Tobin (1991), 187-188. 16 Cf. the similar scholarly view of Foucart (1914) that the Eleusinian mysteries were transferred to Greece from Egypt and that Demeter is a Hellenised Isis. His suggestions were dismissed, see e.g. Picard (1927). 17 Hdt. 2.171.4-9: Καὶ τῆς Δήμητρος τελετῆς πέρι, τὴν οἱ Ἕλληνες Θεσμοφόρια καλέουσι, καὶ ταύτης μοι πέρι εὔστομα κείσθω, πλὴν ὅσον αὐτῆς ὁσίη ἐστὶ λέγειν· αἱ Δαναοῦ θυγατέρες ἦσαν αἱ τὴν τελετὴν ταύτην ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐξαγαγοῦσαι καὶ διδάξασαι τὰς Πελασγιώτιδας γυναῖκας. 18 Hecataeus was a contemporary of Ptolemy I Soter; for his chronology see Suda ε 359, s.v. ‘Ἑκαταῖος, Ἀβδηρίτης’; Diod. Sic. 1.46.8; Josephus Ap. 1.183. Cf. Fraser (1972), II 719-720 n. 6-7.

9

Eleusinian mysteries, derived from Egypt.19 More specifically, he mentions that they considered the legendary king of Athens Erechtheus as an Egyptian who became

Athens’ benefactor when he exported great amounts of corn to the city, thus saving its people from a terrible drought. Subsequently, as the donor of corn he legitimately established at Eleusis the cult of the goddess who presided over the fertility of the land and the cultivation of cereals. Subsequently, the Eumolpids and the Kerykes, the priestly gene that controlled the worship of Demeter at Eleusis, were also claimed to have derived from Egypt.

With regard to Isis, Herodotus notes that ‘Demeter in Egyptian is Isis’,20 while Diodorus Siculus writes that ‘the same goddess is called Isis by some, while by others Demeter’.21 Similarly, the fourth century writer Leo of Pella mentions in his treatise on Egypt that ‘Isis is called Demeter by the Greeks’.22 At a later time,

Plutarch records the similarities between the rites of Isis and the Greek

Thesmophoria.23 Thus Isis was known to the Greeks from the fifth century or even earlier, possibly through the Greek colony of Naucratis at the Nile.24 It is indicative

19 FGrH 264 F 25 = Diod. Sic. 1.29.1-5. 20 Hdt. 2.59.6: Ἶσις δέ ἐστι κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλήνων γλῶσσαν Δημήτηρ; 2.156.20-21: αἰγυπτιστὶ δὲ Ἀπόλλων μὲν Ὧρος, Δημήτηρ δὲ Ἶσις, 21 Diod. Sic. 1.25.1: τὴν αὐτὴν γὰρ οἱ μὲν Ἶσιν, οἱ δὲ Δήμητραν, οἱ δὲ Θεσμοφόρον, οἱ δὲ Σελήνην, οἱ δὲ Ἥραν, οἱ δὲ πάσαις ταῖς προσηγορίαις ὀνομάζουσι. 22 The passage is preserved in Clem. Al. Strom. 1.21.106.3: Λέων δὲ ὁ τὰ περὶ τῶν κατ’ Αἴγυπτον θεῶν πραγματευσάμενος τὴν Ἶσιν ὑπὸ Ἑλλήνων Δήμητρα καλεῖσθαί φησιν. Cf. Witt (1971), 127-128. 23 Plut. Mor. De Is. et Os. 378d-e: καὶ παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ὅμοια πολλὰ γίνεται περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμοῦ τι χρόνον, οἷς Αἰγύπτιοι δρῶσιν ἐν τοῖς Ἰσείοις. καὶ γὰρ Ἀθήνησι νηστεύουσιν αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν Θεσμοφορίοις χαμαὶ καθήμεναι, καὶ Βοιωτοὶ τὰ τῆς Ἀχαίας μέγαρα κινοῦσιν ἐπαχθῆ τὴν ἑορτὴν ἐκείνην ὀνομάζοντες, ὡς διὰ τὴν τῆς Κόρης κάθοδον ἐν ἄχει τῆς Δήμητρος οὔσης. ἔστι δ’ ὁ μὴν οὗτος περὶ Πλειάδας σπόριμος, ὃν Ἀθὺρ Αἰγύπτιοι, Πυανεψιῶνα δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι, Βοιωτοὶ δὲ Δαμάτριον καλοῦσι. 24 See, for instance, the dedication of an Isis and Horus statue by an Ionian Greek residing in Naucratis, dated to the end of the sixth or fifth century BC, published by Edgar (1904).

10 that a sanctuary of Isis was established in Piraeus by Egyptian merchants in the fourth century BC.25

Isis’ character in pharaonic Egypt is not much illuminated by the sources.26 It is known that she rose in prominence in the New Kingdom and that she was a throne goddess who functioned as the guardian of the king27 and was best known as the sister and wife of Osiris and mother of the sun god, Horus, with whom each Pharaoh was identified.28 It was in the Ptolemaic period that Isis’ cult developed greatly, when she was ‘reinvented’ as the wife of Sarapis, with whom she shared a common cult in Alexandria (and at a later stage along with their son Harpocrates).29 In all respects, Isis of the Hellenistic period was an almost completely new ‘product’: she was a ‘Hellenised’ Isis, the Egyptian counterpart of Demeter.30 Isis was associated, like Demeter, with agriculture and the fertility of the crops:31 she or Osiris is said to have discovered the first fruits,32 while the latter is reported to have travelled around the earth to diffuse the art of agriculture, assuming a role similar to that of

Triptolemus.33 More importantly, Isis was believed to control the fecundity of the land by managing the rising and flooding of the Nile every year, since, according to a myth recorded by Pausanias, the rise of the Nile was caused by the tears of Isis

25 See the Athenian decree IG2 II 337, dated to 333/332 BC, the same year that Alexandria was founded. 26 Ashton (2001), 37. 27 Her hieroglyph meant ‘throne’, thus she might have personified the royal throne originally. See Frankfort (1948), 6; Witt (1971), 15; Dunand (1973), 4-5; Heyob (1975), 1. 28 Hdt. 2.156.15-19; Diod. Sic. 1.13.27; Plut. Mor. De Is. et Os. 355d-f. Cf. Thompson (1973), 58. 29 Fraser (1972), I 263-265; Thompson (1973), 58; Ashton (2001), 37. Cf. Arrian’s account on the foundation of Alexandria and the design of its architecture by Alexander himself (Anab. 3.1.5): πόθος οὖν λαμβάνει αὐτὸν τοῦ ἔργου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ σημεῖα τῇ πόλει ἔθηκεν, ἵνα τε ἀγορὰν ἐν αὐτῇ δείμασθαι ἔδει καὶ ἱερὰ ὅσα καὶ θεῶν ὧντινων, τῶν μὲν Ἑλληνικῶν, Ἴσιδος δὲ Αἰγυπτίας, καὶ τὸ τεῖχος ᾗ περιβεβλῆσθαι. καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐθύετο, καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ καλὰ ἐφαίνετο. 30 For the ‘fabrication’ of Isis’ identity by the Ptolemies and their exploitation of her cult as a means of propaganda, see Pachis (2004), 166, 170. Cf. Solmsen (1979), 21; Tobin (1991), 188. 31 Dunand (1973), 85-88. 32 For Isis, see Diod. 1.14.2; 27.4. For Osiris, see Plut. Mor. De Is. et Os. 356a-b. 33 Diod. Sic. 1.17-18. On Triptolemus, see p. 195 n. 896.

11 mourning for Osiris.34 Furthermore, as the mother of Horus, she was the archetypal nursing mother goddess, just as Demeter was as the mother of Persephone,35 while she was considered as the protector of the dead, just as Demeter-Persephone in her chthonic form.36

Those roles are exemplified in the main myths of the two goddesses, where their parallelisation is very clearly manifested:37 as Demeter loses her daughter when the latter is abducted by Hades, Isis loses her husband who is murdered by his brother. They both wander around the earth to find their beloved and in the course of their search they find a mortal queen whose son they take care of and try to make immortal by fire. In the end, both stories reach resolutions: Osiris’ mummification is followed by his resurrection as the god of the Underworld, while Persephone’s stay in the Underworld is succeeded by her ascent to the upper world and the reunification with her mother every spring.38

The correspondences between the two mythical circles are best demonstrated on the frescoes found in the Alexandrian catacombs of Kom el-Shuqafa, dated to the late first century AD.39 There, on the walls above the sarcophagoi, two parallel, one above the other, scenes are visible: one Egyptian, one Greek. The upper register depicts Osiris’ death and mummification, with Isis and her sister Nephthys next to him lamenting for his death. On the lower zone, three Greek goddesses, i.e. Athena,

Artemis and Aphrodite, are shown and next to them Persephone, who wears a

34 Paus. 10.32.18. Witt (1971), 14; Stephens (1998), 176-177. According to Plut. Mor. De. Is. et Os. 366a, Isis was identified with the Dog Star that caused the flooding, or that Isis was the earth fertilised by Osiris-Nile. 35 Dunand (1973), 9-11, 95-98. 36 Thompson (1973), 58. 37 See e.g. Solmsen (1979), 10-11; Thompson (1998), 707. 38 The basic source for Demeter’s and Persephone’s myth is the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Accounts of Isis’ and Osiris’ story are found in Diod. Sic. 1.21-22; Plut. Mor. De Is. et Os. 361d-e, 366d-367c. 39 See Empereur (1998), 170-173 with illustrations. Cf. Thompson (1998), 707; Guimier-Sorbets and Seif El-Din (2004), 137; Parca (2007), 203-204.

12 kalathos on her head, is being dragged away in a four-horse chariot by Hades.40 The paintings on the side walls supplement the myth of Persephone’s abduction: one depicts Persephone accompanied by her friends before the abduction, and the other the moment of her return from the Underworld and her welcoming by Demeter and

Hecate. Both stories are appropriate in the context of a burial site, as they both symbolise death and rebirth. Significantly, the two scenes are juxtaposed and not merged, thus attesting the coexistence and not the mixing of the two separate traditions. However, their parallel depiction proves that the people of Alexandria noticed the similarities and correspondences between the two myths and were receptive to both, adhering to both beliefs in afterlife.41

Admittedly, the frescoes of Kom el-Shuqafa represent one of the few instances where the two traditions are juxtaposed but at the same time are so clearly distinguished. It is more common for the two goddesses to appear assimilated or equated, such as in some of Isis’ aretalogies. In the oldest of them (second century

BC), originating not from Egypt but from Maroneia of Thrace,42 Isis is presented as the Law-giver43 and associated particularly with Athens, Triptolemus and Eleusis.44

Furthermore, in the Hymns to Isis composed by Isidorus for the temple of Isis-

40 Cf. the wall painting of Persephone’s abduction in a forth-century BC tomb at Vergina; see Andronikos (1994), 126-130. 41 Empereur (1998), 172-173. Cf. Dunand (2007), 256. 42 IThraceL 205; SEG XXVI 821; SEG XXXI 676; SEG XXXIII 1570; SEG XXXVI 1586; SEG XXXVIII 2014; SEG XL 1718; SEG XLII 655; SEG LII 1978; SEG LIII 2232; Merkelbach (1995), 1, 61, 63, 71, 79, 122, 223-224. See Papanikolaou (2009). 43 Line 29: σὺ νόμους ἔδωκας, θεσμοὶ δ’ ἐκαλοῦντο κατὰ πρώτας. Cf. Diod. Sic. 1.14.5; Apul. Met. 11.3. 44 Lines 35-41: σὺ μάλιστα τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἐτίμησας τὰς Ἀθήνας· κεῖθι γὰρ πρῶτον τοὺς καρποὺς ἐξέφηνας· Τριπτόλε- μος δὲ τοὺς ἱεροὺς δράκοντάς σου καταζεύξας ἁρματοφο- ρούμενος εἰς πάντας Ἕλληνας διέδωκε τὸ σπέρμα· τοιγαροῦν τῆς μὲν Ἑλλάδος ἰδεῖν σπεύδομεν τὰς Ἀθήνας, τῶν δ’ Ἀθη- νῶν Ἐλευσῖνα, τῆς μὲν Εὐρώπης νομίζοντες τὴν πόλιν, τῆς δὲ πόλεως τὸ ἱερὸν κόσμον.

13

Hermouthis in the Fayum in the end of the second century BC, Isis is invoked as

Demeter (alongside other female deities)45 and is said to be worshipped by all people under the names of other goddesses, among them Demeter.46 Demeter and Isis’ assimilation is more evident in iconography, where the two goddesses lend attributes to one another: in some instances Demeter appears with Isis’ crown and dress, while

Isis is at times depicted holding a torch, poppies and cornstalks or with a cornucopia.47

Nevertheless, apart from her appearance as or in relation to Isis, there is plenty of evidence from Ptolemaic Egypt which confirms that Demeter was worshipped independently, in separate cult places and at distinct festivals. I begin my survey of the evidence with the examination of the sources for Demeter’s cult in

Alexandria. The existence of a Thesmophorion in the Ptolemaic capital is attested by

Polybius, in his account of the events following the death of Ptolemy IV Philopator towards the end of the third century BC.48 He mentions the temple as the place of refuge of Oenanthe, Agathocles’ mother, who took advantage of the fact that its doors were open for the annual sacrifice to Demeter. In the same point Polybius

45 Hymn 1.3: Δηοῖ ὑψίστη; Hymn 3.2: Ἶσι ἁγνή, ἁγία, μεγάλη, μεγαλώνυμε Δηοῖ; Hymn 4.4: Δηοῖ ὑψίστῃ Ἴσιδι θεσμοφόρῳ). For the edition of Isidorus’ Hymns to Isis see Vanderlip (1972). On these hymns in general see Fraser (1972), I 670-672; Hermann (1999), 75. 46 Hymn 1.18-24: Ἀστάρτην Ἄρτεμίν σε Σύροι κλῄζουσι Ναναίαν καὶ Λυκίων ἔθνη η Λητοῦν καλέουσιν ἄνασσαν Μητέρα δὴ κλῄζουσι θεῶν καὶ Θρήϊκες ἄνδρες, Ἕλληνες δ’ Ἥρην μεγαλόθρονον ἠδ’ Ἀφροδίτην καὶ Ἑστίαν ἀγαθήν, καὶ Ῥεῖαν, καὶ Δήμητρα, Αἰγύπτιοι δὲ Θιοῦιν, ὅτι μούνη εἶ σὺ ἅπασαι αἱ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ὀνομαζόμεναι θεαὶ ἄλλαι. 47 See Dunand (1973), 92-94, 257; (2007), 258-259. Cf. Hermann (1999), passim, who discusses Roman bronze statuettes and clay lamps from Egypt depicting Demeter wearing a long tunic, a cloak and a diadem which is sometimes accompanied by a kalathos or/and a disc crown, while holding a torch and an ear of corn in her hands. He argues that this is a type of ‘Egyptian’ Demeter and notes (page 70) that this type of figurines ‘must not only have been common there, but it must have been especially at home there. It was in all likelihood the centre from which the design emanated to other parts of the Mediterranean’. On the cornucopia see below, p. 32-33. 48 Polyb. 15.29.8-9; 33.8.

14 refers also to a temple of Demeter;49 more specifically, he records that Agathocles’ supporters kidnapped Danae, Tlepolemus’ mother-in-law, from Demeter’s temple in

Alexandria and then dragged her through the city and imprisoned her. The fact that

Polybius does not refer to the temple as the Thesmophorion might be an indication that he had two different buildings in mind.50 Another reference to the

Thesmophorion is found in the fragmentary papyrus of Satyrus’ work on the Demes to Alexandria (late third century BC). There, Satyrus records a decree regarding the cult of Arsinoe II Philadelphus and describes, among others, the course of the kanephoros’ procession which had to pass by the Thesmophorion.51 Although no archaeological traces of a temple (or temples) of Demeter were found in Alexandria, its (or their) approximate location might be deduced from the context of the events described by Polybius.52 Thus, it/they must have been situated within the royal district, i.e. in the inner city or in a very nearby suburb, hence classified among the most important cult places of the capital.53

The evidence for the existence of a separate Kore temple in the city is not firm. Epiphanius (end of the fourth century AD) refers to a celebration in honour of

Kore and Aion in Alexandria, but it is not certain if this originated in the Ptolemaic

49 Polyb. 15.27.2. 50 See Skowronek and Tkaczow (1981), 132 with n. 9. They argue that that although ancient studies of Alexandrian topography tended to confuse the two structures, Polybius distinguishes them clearly. Contra, Fraser (1972), I 198. 51 P.Oxy. XXVII 2465 fr. 2 col. 1: τοῦ Ἀρσινόης [ ] Θεσμοφόριον [ ] Πτολεμαιεῖον μηδεὶς βαδιζέτω τῇ κανηφόρῳ Ἀρ σινόης Φιλαδέλφου μετὰ πρυτάνεων καὶ ἱερέων καὶ γυμνασιάρχων καὶ ἐφήβ ων καὶ ῥαβδοφόρων (= Burstein 93; Austin 295). Cf. Thompson (1973), 71-72. On Arsinoe’s kanephoros, see below, p. 27-28. 52 See Skowronek and Tkaczow (1981), 132, 134 and Fraser (1972), II 334 n. 70, for the outdated, false identification of the ruins of a temple found near the Canopic Street with the Thesmophorion. 53 Fraser (1972), I 198-199.

15 period.54 Generally, as the presentation of the evidence will illustrate, Kore did not hold an important role in the cult of Ptolemaic Egypt as Demeter.

The Alexandrian suburb called Eleusis has prompted the greatest debate regarding Demeter’s cult in the Ptolemaic capital, primarily with reference to the nature of the celebrations that took place there.55 A brief reference to Alexandrian

Eleusis is found in Strabo, who offers details mainly on its geographical location,56 that is, on the canal route to Canopus, in the south-eastern part of the city.57 He additionally informs us that it was the place where κανωβισμός (‘Canopic way of life’, i.e. living lavishly) initiated and flourished.58 The Suda refers to the ‘village of

Eleusis’ as the place where Callimachus had taught as a schoolmaster when he arrived in Egypt,59 while Livy mentions a river at Eleusis and the latter’s distance from Alexandria (four miles).60 Moreover, some instances of the demotic Ἐλευσίνιος which most possibly refer to the respective Alexandrian suburb are found in papyri.61

Overall, the aforementioned sources attest the existence of a place called

Eleusis in Alexandria, but provide no evidence regarding the worship of Demeter

54 Epiph. Panar. haeres. 51.22.8. See Fraser (1972), II 336-337 n. 79 §2; Skowronek and Tkaczow (1981), 132. An additional reference to a festival in honour of Kore is found in Posidonius (quoted by Strabo) FGrH 87 F 28.4, where he mentions that Eudoxus from Cyzicus arrived to Alexandria as a theoros for the Koreia. However, it is more likely that he went to announce the festival to be held in his own city, rather than to attend one in the Egyptian capital. Cf. Fraser (1972), II 336 n. 79 §1. 55 For a summary of the evidence and scholarly views, see Fraser (1972), I 200-201; II 338-339 n. 80- 88; Hopkinson (1984), 33-35. 56 Strabo 17.1.16: Ἐν δεξιᾷ δὲ τῆς Κανωβικῆς πύλης ἐξιόντι ἡ διῶρυξ ἔστιν ἡ ἐπὶ Κάνωβον συνάπτουσα τῇ λίμνῃ· ταύτῃ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ Σχεδίαν ὁ πλοῦς ἐπὶ τὸν μέγαν ποταμὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Κάνωβον, πρῶτον δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἐλευσῖνα· ἔστι δ’ αὕτη κατοικία πλησίον τῆς τε Ἀλεξανδρείας καὶ τῆς Νικοπόλεως ἐπ’ αὐτῇ τῇ Κανωβικῇ διώρυγι κειμένη, διαίτας ἔχουσα καὶ ἀπόψεις τοῖς καπυρίζειν βουλομένοις καὶ ἀνδράσι καὶ γυναιξίν, ἀρχή τις Κανωβισμοῦ καὶ τῆς ἐκεῖ λαμυρίας. Cf. Calderini (1975), s.v. ‘Ἐλευσίς (2)᾿, 136; (1988), 104. 57 See Skowronek and Tkaczow (1981), 134 on the archaeological findings at and near the alleged location of Alexandrian Eleusis. 58 Cf. Fraser (1972), I 200. 59 Suda κ 227, s.v. ‘Καλλίμαχος’: πρὶν δὲ συσταθῇ τῷ βασιλεῖ, γράμματα ἐδίδασκεν ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι, κωμυδρίῳ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας. Cf. Pfeiffer (1953), II xciv. I. 60 Liv. 45.12.2: ad Eleusinem transgresso flumen, qui locus quattuor milia ab Alexandrea abest. 61 See Satyrus, P.Oxy. XXVII 2465 fr. 3 col. 2.11; P.Petr. III 4.6 (237 BC). Cf. Fraser (1972), I 44, 200, II 126 n. 8.

16 there. For this reason, the scholarly discussion on the celebrations at Alexandrian

Eleusis and their possible relation to Attic Eleusis has focused on three other testimonies. The first is a scholion on Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, which mentions that Ptolemy II Philadelphus established the procession of Demeter’s kalathos in Alexandria in imitation of Athenian customs,62 presumably the

Eleusinian mysteries, thus implying that this was the ritual portrayed in the hymn.63

However, as scholars have pointed out, this kind of procession is not attested in

Athens,64 while the ritual described by Callimachus is more similar to the festival of the Thesmophoria than the Eleusinian mysteries.65

The assumption that the Athenian custom mentioned in the scholion was related to the Eleusinian mysteries was based on another source: according to

Tacitus, Ptolemy I Soter invited the Athenian Timotheus of the Eumolpid family to come to Alexandria to offer him advice on the introduction of Sarapis’ cult in the capital.66 Since the Eumolpidae were the genos from which the hierophants and other priests of the Eleusinian mysteries derived,67 some have assumed that Timotheus, as the religious advisor of the king, offered him valuable information regarding the celebration of the mysteries in Attica, and that this was reflected in the establishment

62 Schol. H. 6.1.: Ὁ Φιλάδελφος Πτολεμαῖος κατὰ μίμησιν τῶν Ἀθηνῶν ἔθη τινὰ ἵδρυσεν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, ἐν οἷς καὶ τὴν τοῦ καλάθου πρόοδον. ἔθος γὰρ ἦν ἐν Ἀθήναις ἐν ὡρισμένῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐπὶ ὀχήματος φέρεσθαι κάλαθον εἰς τιμὴν τῆς Δήμητρος. Cf. Pfeiffer (1953), II lxxix. On the Hymn to Demeter and the kalathos procession, see p. 28. 63 See Fraser (1972), II 339 n. 87; Hopkinson (1984), 32-33. Some scholars argued that Callimachus’ hymn was composed on the occasion of the introduction of Arsinoe’s Kanephoros to Alexandria, see Kern (1901), 2742; IJsewijn (1961), 136. Cf. Minas (1998), 48-49. 64 Dillon (2002), 125. 65 See Cahen (1930), 247-249; Fraser (1972), II 339 n. 87. Hopkinson (1984), 35-36, 39-43; Depew (1993), 65; Giuseppcetti (2012), 105-106. 66 Tac. Hist. 4.83.2: Ptolemaeus omine et miraculo excitus sacerdotibus Aegyptiorum, quibus mos talia intellegere, nocturnos visus aperit. atque illis Ponti et externorum parum gnaris, Timotheum Atheniensem e gente Eumolpidarum, quem ut antistitem caerimoniarum Eleusine exciverat, quaenam illa superstitio, quod numen, interrogat. 67 See Suda ε 3584, s.v. ‘Εὐμολπίδαι’. Cf. Hymn. Hom. Cer. 154, 475; Diod. Sic. 1.29; Apollod. 3.15.4 for Eumolpus, the eponym of the genos and, according to the myth, one of the founders of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

17 of a place called Eleusis.68 Nevertheless, both the possibility that the name Eleusis was transferred to Alexandria with the intention of reproducing the Eleusinian mysteries in Egypt and the view that actual mysteries took place there have been successfully rejected by scholars on the basis of the weak support they receive from the sources.69

The only author that specifically refers to ceremonies taking place in

Alexandrian Eleusis is Satyrus, who reports that it was named after Attic Eleusis and that once a year it hosted a panegyris which consisted of a musical and, possibly, a theatrical contest.70 He thus confirms the existence of some kind of annual celebration in Alexandrian Eleusis, as well as the place’s relation to Attic Eleusis.

These, however, are far from being evidence for the transplanting of the Eleusinian mysteries in Alexandria.71 There is only one dedication to Demeter from Alexandria, on behalf of Ptolemy IV Philopator and Arsinoe III, and it addresses Demeter jointly with Kore and Dikaiosyne.72 The last epithet may be a personification of Demeter as

Thesmophoros (thus associated with laws and justice), or Isis, who is attested with

68 Fraser (1972), I 200-201, II 338 n. 86. 69 See Fraser (1972), II 339 n. 88, for bibliography. He follows Lloyd-Jones (1963a), 454, who has pointed out that numerous other sites with the name Eleusis are attested, for which no evidence of mysteries analogous to the Eleusinian exists. Epictetus (Enchiridion 3.21.11-14) attests that the transfer of the Eleusinian mysteries to a different land was considered a sacrilege. Fraser (1972), I 201, refers also to the Roman emperors’ difficulties in transplanting the Eleusinian mysteries to Rome. 70 Satyrus, P.Oxy. XXVII fr. 3 col. 2. 1-5: ἀπὸ το ῦ σύνεγγυς ὄντ ος ἱεροῦ, τὴν δ’ ὁμωνυμίαν εἰληφότος ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἐλευσῖνος, οὗ κατ’ ἐν ιαυτὸν ὁμοίως ἐτύ γ χανεν ἀγομέ νη πανήγυρις ἔχουσα γυμνικὸν καὶ μουσικὸν ἀγῶνα, χαρ ιέστατον τόπον κατεχούσης θέας. 71 See Dunand (2007), 256, who refers to it as evidence for the familiarity of the people in Egypt with the Eleusinian legend nevertheless. 72 OGIS 83: ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Ἀρσινόης, θεῶν Φιλοπατόρων, Ἀπολλώνιος Ἀμμωνίου καὶ Τιμόκιον Κρισιλάου καὶ τὰ παιδία Δήμητρι καὶ Κόρῃ καὶ Δικαιοσύνῃ.

18 the epithet Dikaiosyne. However, since Kore is also mentioned here, it is most possible that the reference is not to Isis.73

More eloquent regarding Demeter’s worship in Egypt are the sources – mainly papyri – from the Ptolemaic chora. To begin with, three letters from the archive of Zenon attest the early existence of Demetria and Thesmophoria in

Alexandria and the Arsinoite nome, where, as it will be illustrated further below,

Demeter’s cult gained great popularity throughout the centuries.74 The first letter is written by a κιθαρῳδός named Satyra who complains to Zenon that, despite the hypomnema filed by Apollonius, she and her mother have not yet received the payment (clothing allowance and ‘provisions’) for the former’s performance (?) at the Demetria; thus she requests to be sent what she is entitled to receive.75 No further information is provided regarding the exact time of the year that the festival took place, neither it is specified whether the Demeter festival was held in Alexandria or at the place of the letter’s provenance, i.e. Philadelphia in the Arsinoite nome.76 In the second letter, a certain Ctesias informs Zenon that he was not able to deliver to

Aristeas the two jars of wine destined for Amyntas’ wife for the Thesmophoria, because Aristeas was away.77 Since it is known from other sources that Amyntas lived in Alexandria, it is very likely that the Thesmophoria mentioned here were held in the Ptolemaic capital, presumably at about the same time of the year as in

73 See Fraser (1972), I 221. 74 Zenon of Caunus was the secretary of Apollonius, the financial minister of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and later of Ptolemy III Euergetes. 75 P.Cair.Zen. I 59028.7= SB III 6784 (dated possibly to 258 BC): καὶ τοῦτο ὃ σὺ τοῖς Δημητρίοις ἀπέστειλας δοῦναι ἡμῖν. Cf. Rowlandson (1998), 98 no. 77, who translates it as ‘and these you send so as to reach us during the festival of Demeter’. 76 See Casarico (1981), 126-127; Parca (2007), 201. 77 P.Col. III 19 (= P.Col.Zen. I 19), dated to 257 (28th November). Lines 1-3: ἔγραψάς μοι ἵνα δῶ Ἀριστεῖ ὥστε | τῆι Ἀμύντου γυναικὶ εἰς τὰ Θεσμοφόρια χῖα δύο. διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπι|δημεῖν οὖν τὸν Ἀριστέα οὐθενὶ δέδωκα.

19

Athens.78 According to the third letter, a man named Ariston sacrificed a pig at a sanctuary but was later accused of having stolen the animal that had been fattened

‘for the fasting of Demeter’.79 Both references, i.e. to the pig sacrifice and the

νηστεία of Demeter, point to the celebration of the Thesmophoria, that is, the Attic

Thesmophoria in particular:80 the pig sacrifice was presumably carried out during the first day of the festival,81 while literary sources refer to the second day of the

Thesmophoria as the Nesteia.82

Festivals of Demeter are mentioned also in two account documents from the same nome. The first records the grain supply for the making of bread for Isis’ festival and the Thesmophoria and is particularly important for two reasons:83 on the one hand it confirms the close relationship between Demeter and Isis in cult, while on the other it attests the participation of Egyptian women in Demeter’s cult, since the names of the recipients of grain denote the latters’ Egyptian origin.84 The second account merely refers to the Demetria and a Thesmophorion in the context of a list of wine and eatables, possibly destined for consumption and/or dedication at festivals.85

Cult places of Demeter are attested in many places all over the Ptolemaic chora. For instance, a petition from the Arsinoite refers to two Thesmophoria, one

78 Casarico (1981), 127. Cf. Parca (2007), 201. 79 P.Cair.Zen. III 59350r.4-5 (26th November of 244 BC): τεθυκέναι δὲ ἴδιον σιτευτόν, καὶ τὰ κρέα | ἐνεδείκνυεν· τὸν δὲ ὑοφορβὸν ἔφατο παραγενέσθαι τῇ νηστείᾳ τῆς Δήμητρος. 80 Casarico (1981), 127-128; Parca (2007), 201-202. The latter follows the former alongside Perpillou- Thomas (1993), 78-81, in arguing that the Demeter festivals in the chora imitated the Alexandrian one, which was in turn modelled on the Athenian Thesmophoria. 81 Piglets were sacrificed and then thrown into the chasms of Demeter and Kore, the megara. Then some women called ἀντλήτριαι (Bailers) descended into the megara, brought up the remains of the piglets and placed them on the altars. See Clem. Al. Protr. 2.17.1; Schol. Luc. 275.23-276.28 Rabe on Dial. meret. 2.1. Cf. Burkert (1985), 243; Clinton (1988); Parker (2005), 273. 82 Plut. Mor. De Is. et Os. 378d; Vit. Dem. 30.5; Cf. Ar. Av. 1519. See Parker (2005), 272, 274. 83 BGU VII 1552.2md.5-8 (end of the third-beginning of the second century BC from Philadelphia): τοῖς Ἰσιείοις ἀρτάβη α χοίνικες ϛ | Χοιὰχ Θερμούθει ἀρτάβη α | καὶ εἰς τὰ Θεσμοφό|ρια ἀρτάβαι κβ. Cf. Casarico (1981), 128. 84 See Parca (2007), 202. 85 P.Teb. III 2.1079.3 (late third/early second century BC): Δημητρίοις, 81 εἰς τὸ Θεσμοφόριον. Cf. Casarico (1981), 128.

20 located in Dikaiou Nesos and the other in Oxyrynchus. According to the document, after the death of their owner, the proprietorship of these was disputed, which means that the Thesmophoria in question were privately owned shrines.86 Moreover, a taxation account from Alexandrou Nesos in the Arsinoite mentions a temple of

Demeter (along with one of the Dioscuroi) situated in the vineyards around the village,87 while another document from the same nome refers to the land belonging to Demeter and Kore.88 Additionally, two papyri of the third century BC record the existence of a Thesmophorion near the village (κώμη) called Berenikis in the

Arsinoite.89 Finally, a village called Eleusis, suggestive of a Demeter cult and possibly named after the homonymous suburb of Alexandria, is frequently mentioned in papyri from the Arsinoite, the earliest of which are dated to the middle of the third century BC.90

Apart from the papyri written in Greek, three demotic documents from the

Ptolemaic period refer to the cult of Demeter in the chora, thus attesting Demeter’s popularity also among the indigenous population. The first of these is a demotic tax document from the Arsinoite, dated to 243-217;91 there, Demeter is referred to with her Greek name as T3mtr, while her two priestesses are mentioned as classified

86 P.Enteux. 19.3-4 (222-218 BC): καὶ ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ Δικαίου | κώμῃ θεσμοφορίου Δήμητρος καὶ τῶν συνκυρόντων, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἄλλου ἐν Ὀξυρύγχοις, 87 P.Petr. II 43 a-b.14 (299-200 BC): τοῦ περὶ τὸ Δημήτριον. 88 P.Petr. III 97.4-5 (214-205 BC, from Philadelphia): καὶ οἱ μέτοχοι | Δημητρὸς καὶ Κόρης. 89 P.Petr. III 41.5-6 (beginning of the third century BC): κατὰ Βερενικίδα τὴν πρὸς τῷ θεσμοφόρῳ; P.Enteux. 74.1-2 (221 BC): Βερενικίδι τῇ πρὸς τῷ | Θεσμοφόρῳ. Interestingly, in later sources the name of the village is referred to as Berenikis Thesmophorou (Βερενικὶς Θεσμοφόρου), thus alluding to the association of Berenice I after whom the village was named – since it is recorded from the beginning of the third century BC – with Demeter. See Calderini (1973), s.v. ‘Βερενικὶς Θεσμοφόρου’, 42-44; (1988), 79; (1996), 34, for information and sources. 90 The earliest papyri are P.Rev. XC 13 (259 BC); P.Sorb. 28.3, 10 (251 BC); P.Gur. 23.26 (third century BC); P.Lille I 43.1, 10 (third century BC); P.Tebt. III 936.1, 5 (third century BC). See Calderini (1975), s.v. ‘Ἐλευσίς (1)’, 138; (1988), 104, for a comprehensive list of the sources. One instance of the ethnic Ἐλευσίνιος (P.Mil.Vogl. IV 212r III.3) possibly refers to the village in the Arsinoite and not the Alexandrian deme; see Calderini (1975), s.v. ‘Ἐλευσίνιος (2)’, 137. 91 P.Count. 8 col. ii.7 (132 BC).

21 among a privileged group of people such as doctors, school teachers and those related to the sacred ibis that are exempted from the salt tax.92 Demeter is once more mentioned with her Greek name in a letter found in the temple archives of

Soknopaiou Nesos in the Arsinoite, in which the priests of Soknopaios and Isis

Nepherses address a certain Nmpn, priest of T3mtr.93 As mentioned above, the name

T3mtr denotes Demeter, while Nmpn is probably a transcribed version of the Greek name Nymphion. The latter appears to have been in charge of a worship of Demeter in a separate chapel incorporated in the great temple of Soukhos, possibly in

Ptolemais Euergetis. The fact that Demeter is mentioned with her Greek name in the two aforementioned demotic documents indicates that the cult in question was that of

Demeter in her Hellenic form and not as her counterpart Isis (Egyptians, unlike

Greeks, never referred to Isis as Demeter by name).94 Thus both documents confirm not only that the indigenous population of the Ptolemaic chora was familiar with

Demeter as a Greek goddess, but also that her cult was very prominent (thus the privileges for the priestesses). Furthermore, the attestation in the second papyrus that

Demeter was worshipped in the same temple as Egyptian deities is indicative, regardless of the likelihood that her priest was a Greek, of the possibility of her being adopted by Egyptians. The goddess’ popularity among the native population and the latter’s participation in her cult is made even more explicit in the third instance, i.e. a demotic document of endowment from Heliopolis (Arsinoite), which refers to the priest of Demeter as Peteesis, that is, an Egyptian.95 Thus one may presume that

Demeter’s aforementioned ability to appeal both to indigenous and to immigrant

92 See Thompson (1998), 700-701; Clarysse and Thompson (2006), I 234 ad loc.; Parca (2007), 194. 93 P.Oxf.Griffith I 6. 94 See Quaegebeur (1983), 305-306; Thompson (1998), 701; Parca (2007), 190, 192. 95 P.Mich.inv. 4244.4a (142 BC). See Quaegebeur (1983), 306; Thompson (1998), 701.

22 groups contributed not only to the great diffusion of her cult, but also to her becoming a uniting factor between the different ethnic groups, especially within the framework of intermarriage.96

Here it might be useful to note that there are numerous additional sources from the Roman period which mention Demeter’s festivals taking place in the

Egyptian chora, while papyri dated to the second and third centuries AD attest the existence of two ἄμφοδα Δημητρείου, one in Karanis and one in Arsinoe (both in the

Arsinoite nome)97 and an ἄμφοδον Θεσμοφορίου in Arsinoe.98 The ἄμφοδα were quarters of towns and were named after sanctuaries or shrines situated within their territory.99 The importance of the Roman evidence rests on the assumption that it reflects the adoption or the continuation of Ptolemaic practices and as such is informative for the cult of the goddess in the earlier period.100 A document worthy of a more thorough treatment is a letter of the second century AD from Oxyrhynchus, which constitutes an important testimony for the survival of Demeter’s cult in the

Egyptian chora well into the Roman period.101 There, the hierophant of the goddess, named Marcus Aurelius Apollonius, addresses the priestess-kalathephoros of the

Oxyrhynchite nome asking her to go to the temple of Demeter in Sinkepha, a village in Upper Egypt, in order to carry out sacrifices on behalf of the emperors and their

96 Cf. Thompson (1998), 705; Parca (2007), 203. 97 In BGU I 154.6; VII 1623.6. See Calderini (1975), s.v. ‘Δημητρείου ἄμφοδον’, 98; (1988), 93. 98 E.g. in BGU II 581.8; P.Fayum 52.5. For more sources see Calderini (1975), s.v. ‘Θεσμοφορίου ἄμφοδον’, 270; (1988), 141. 99 See LSJ, s.v. ἄμφοδον, meaning either ‘street’, or ‘block of houses surrounded by streets’/‘quarter of a town’. Cf. Casarico (1981), 126; Parca (2007), 196. 100 These are: P.Flor. III 388.15 = SB XXIV 15920 (end of the first-beginning of the second century AD, from Hermopolis Magna); P.Giss. I 18.11 (second century AD, from Apollonospolis Heptakom); SB III 7199.5 (second century AD, from the Arsinoite); P.Ross.Georg. II 41.59 (late second century AD, from the Arsinoite); P.Giss. I 49.17, 25 (mid third century AD, from Oxyrhynchus). Cf. Parca (2007), 202-203. 101 P.Oxy. XXXVI 2782 (after 217 AD). Cf. Rowlandson (1998), 62 no. 36.

23 victory and for the rise of the Nile,102 the growth of the crops and a good climate.103

The reference to the office of the hierophant, mainly associated with Attic Eleusis,104 is possibly indicative of the preservation of the Greek character of the cult in that specific area.105 The hierophant in question appears to be in charge of the minor temples in his region and for this reason he arranges for the unstaffed temple in

Sinkepha to be visited by the priestess of a neighbouring village.106 This arrangement indicates that the performance of the customary sacrifices to Demeter in all – even the minor – temples of the goddess was necessary for the securing of good agricultural production. Furthermore, it testifies that Demeter’s cult – in her form as a Greek goddess in particular – was popular and survived for centuries, especially in an area where normally only Egyptian deities flourished.107

It is also important to mention that most of the evidence – both Greek and demotic – for Demeter’s cult in the Ptolemaic (and Roman) chora derives from the

Arsinoite nome. The Arsinoite incorporated the province of Fayum, a large marshy area between the west bank of the Nile and Lake Moeris that was called ‘the land of the lake’ or ‘the land of Sobek’ (the crocodile god) by Egyptians. In the Middle

Kingdom the area underwent a reclamation that rendered part of the lake and the

102 Depending on the exact date of the letter, the emperors are either Marcus and Verus (161-169 AD) or Marcus and Commodus (176-180 AD), unless, as the editor of the papyrus (A. H. R. E. Paap) notes, ‘the words may be taken to mean emperors past and present’. 103 Μάρκος Αὐρήλιος Ἀπολλώνιος | ἱεροφάντης καλατηφόρῳ Νεσμείμεως χαίρειν. | καλῶς ποιήσεις ἀπελθοῦσα | εἰς Σινκέφα εἰς τὸ τῆς Δή-|μητρος ἱερὸν καὶ ἐπιτε-|λουμ ένη τὰς σ υνήθεις | θυσίας ὑπὲρ τῶν κυρίων | ἡμῶ ν αὐτοκρατόρων καὶ | νίκης αὐτῶν καὶ Νείλου | ἀναβ άσεως καὶ καρπῶν αὐ-|ξ ήσεως καὶ ἀέρων εὐκρασίας. | ἐρρῶσθαι εὔχομαι. 104 Mylonas (1962), 229-231 on the hierophant. 105 Raslan (1988), 211-212; Pakkanen (1996), 33-34; Rowlandson (1998), 62; Parca (2007), 196-197. The former and the latter note that the name of the hierophant, Marcus Aurelius Apollonios, points to a Greek-educated Roman citizen, which supports the idea that his (and the kalathephoros’) duties might reflect Greek cult practices. 106 Raslan (1988) 213. 107 Thompson (1998), 699.

24 neighbouring land suitable for agriculture.108 However, the amount of cultivable land increased immensely with a new reclamation project undertaken by Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who, at some point near the year 257 BC renamed the region after his sister-wife Arsinoe II.109 New towns and villages were established, while the old were renamed; moreover, numerous Greeks and Egyptians settled in the new areas and were allocated land for cultivation, which resulted in an outburst of agricultural production.110 Hence, it is no surprise that the cult of Demeter, the agrarian goddess par excellence, developed and was greatly diffused in this specific area. The fact that a great number of Greek papyri were recovered from the

Arsinoite, as well as the fact that the nome and its villages and towns were given dynastic names (e.g. the capital Arsinoe, later renamed as Ptolemais Euergetes;

Philadelphia etc.) – both exceptional compared to other regions of Egypt – illustrate that the Arsinoite area was of pronounced importance for the Ptolemies, especially with respect to the state’s finances.111 This, combined with Demeter’s prominence in the same region, leads to the conclusion that the goddess and her cult were promoted by the Ptolemies themselves.

The Ptolemies’ interest in Demeter’s cult is best exemplified within the context of the dynastic cult, i.e. the deification and worship of the ruler, his spouse and other members of his family.112 Ptolemaic queens in particular were associated with Greek and (Greco-) Egyptian deities and worshipped as such posthumously or

108 Manning (2003), 99-101. 109 The earliest references to the Arsinoite nome are found in papyri dated to c. 257 BC: P.Col. Zen. II 62.10; PCZ I 59041.3. 110 Vandorpe (2010), 175; Kehoe (2010), 314. 111 Manning (2003), 101-102. 112 On the Ptolemies’ religious program, see p. 7 with n. 7 for bibliography. It must be noted that the Ptolemies, despite being divine, were not equated with gods. In Greek documents cultic honours are made ‘on behalf of the king and his family’, while in Egyptian temples they are presented as offering honours to the gods, rather than receiving such themselves. See Fraser (1972), I 226-227; Winter (1978), 158; Thompson (1988), 135.

25 in their lifetimes.113 According to the Pharaonic tradition, that is, one of the most important points of reference for Ptolemaic religious policy, the queens were honoured as regents to their sons and intermediaries between them and the population.114 Hence, it is no surprise that the queens held a prominent position in the political and religious spheres in the Ptolemaic kingdom, gaining their authority primarily from their status as the king’s spouse and mother of the crown prince.115

Subsequently, the royal women’s assimilation with certain deities is understood mainly as the expression of the Ptolemies’ effort to popularise and legitimise their rule in Egypt, not only among immigrant Greeks, but also the native Egyptian population.

Fraser distinguishes three ways or stages in which the assimilation of a

Ptolemaic queen with a certain goddess was expressed. First, the queen borrowed cult titles which usually pertained to a specific goddess; this is evident mainly in toponyms, such as street names, city quarters and villages commemorating the queen. Secondly, she was referred to with her name accompanied by the name of the goddess; this is attested mainly in documents and inscriptions. Thirdly, she was addressed with the goddess’ name, which marked her complete equation with the latter, a development that appeared only at the end of the Ptolemaic period.116

Arsinoe II Philadelphus (316-270/269 or 269/268 BC) was the first Ptolemaic queen who was deified during her lifetime in the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi (‘Sibling

113 For the Ptolemaic queens and their role in politics and dynastic cult, collectively and individually, see e.g. Macurdy (1932), passim; Pomeroy (1984), 3-40; Thompson (1988), 126-133; Carney (2011), passim. 114 On the Ptolemies’ association with the Pharaohs, see e.g. Koenen (1983), passim; Thompson (1988), 106-154 esp. 106-108 and 146-154; Stephens (1998), 167-169. 115 Ashton (2001), 37. One must also consider the influence of the Macedonian tradition, where (royal) women were much more powerful compared to, for example, Athenian women. On Macedonian women, see Macurdy (1932), 229-232; Pomeroy (1984), 3-11; Carney (2000), 245. 116 Fraser (1972), I 237, 245.

26

Gods’),117 while after her death her husband and brother Ptolemy II Philadelphus established a separate cult for her.118 It is well known that Arsinoe II was primarily assimilated to Aphrodite and Isis,119 but her association with Demeter, as will be shown further down, is also evident and significant. The first type of manifestation of her assimilation with Demeter is exemplified in the naming of two streets in

Alexandria after her, accompanied by cult titles associated with Demeter. More specifically, papyrological evidence attests the existence of a Street of Arsinoe

Eleusinia and a Street of Arsinoe Karpophoros, presumably named thus because specific shrines in honour of the queen with the respective cult titles were placed in their territory.120

A different expression of the association with the goddess is found in the title of the eponymous priestess of Arsinoe II, who was called kanephoros, meaning

‘basket-bearer’ (κανηφόρος Ἀρσινόης Φιλαδέλφου).121 The kanephoros is a title common in Greek cult, usually denoting girls who carried the basket (κανοῦν)122 containing sacred objects in processions within the framework of the cult of different

117 Fraser (1972), I 217; II 367 n. 228; Koenen (1993), 157, 159. P.Hib. II 199.16-17, dated between 270-250 BC, refers to the priest of Alexander and the Theoi Adelphoi, most possibly of the year 272/271. See Koenen (1993), 51-52 n. 61. 118 According to the Mendes Stele, the deceased Arsinoe was welcomed into the company of the gods as a goddess and a living Ba. For the Mendes Stele see Hölbl (2001), 84, 101, 113 n. 23. For the date of Arsinoe’s death, see Koenen (1993), 51 n. 61, who argues for 268 BC and Cadell (1998), who argues for 270 BC. On Arsinoe and her deification see Hölbl (2001), 101-104; Thompson (1988), 126-128, 131. See the latter for Arsinoe being a synnaos theα, i.e. a temple-sharing goddess, for the Egyptians. 119 See e.g. Fraser (1972), I 239-245; Pomeroy (1984), 30-39; Carney (2000), 34-39. On Arsinoe’s association with Isis on cultic oinochoai of faience see Thompson (1973), 57-58. On Arsinoe as Isis on the Pythom Stele (264/263 BC), see Thompson (1973), 59; Ashton (2001), 46, with further references. On Arsinoe and Isis in general, see Selden (1998), 339-340. She was also associated with Hera, Agathe Tyche, Hathor and Athena. See Thompson (1973), 52, 59. 120 Fraser (1972), I 35, 245. 121 There are several references to Arsinoe’s kanephoros in documentary papyri and inscriptions, see for example, P.Col. 54 (256 BC); P.Hib. 98 (251 BC); OGIS 56 (238 BC); 90 = SEG XVIII 634 (196 BC). See Minas (1998), passim. The first kanephoros is attested for the year 269/268 BC or 267/266 BC; on the first date, see Cadell (1998), 3; on the second, see Koenen (1993), 56 n. 73. 122 For the κανοῦν, see Krauskopf (2005a).

27 deities.123 However, evidence from Egypt suggests that the ritual basket was primarily associated with the cult of Demeter in that particular area.124 For instance, a procession of Demeter’s basket, the latter denoted with the word κάλαθος, is described in the ritual frame of Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter.125 This begins with the narrator’s exhortation to chant for the goddess and the descent of the basket, accompanied by instructions to the women attendees not to glance at its content.126

The concluding part of the hymn includes a more detailed account of the procession: the basket is dragged on a four-horse chariot,127 the λικνοφόροι carry λίκνα

(‘winnowing baskets’)128 full of gold,129 while the women follow the procession barefoot and bareheaded,130 the uninitiated only as far as the town hall and the initiated reaching Demeter’s temple.131 A reference to the καλαθηφόρος of Demeter is found in the aforementioned Roman papyrus from the Oxyrhynchite nome,132 while of relevance may also be Satyrus’ account of Arsinoe’s kanephoros’

123 Farnell (1907), III 47-48; Fraser (1972), I 225, 229; Hopkinson (1984), 41-42; Thompson (1998), 702. 124 See mainly Minas (1998). Contra, Μüller (2009), 291-292. 125 It has been noted that Callimachus’ reference to the ritual basket as κάλαθος and not κανοῦν, i.e. the term normally used in cultic contexts, reflects its use within the framework of the worship of Demeter in Egypt in particular; see Minas (1998), 48. Indeed, the instance in Callimachus is the first in literature where the word κάλαθος is mentioned within a ritual context; see Hopkinson (1984), 77 ad loc.; Schipporeit (2005). 126 H. 6.1-3: Τῶ καλάθω κατιόντος ἐπιφθέγξασθε, γυναῖκες· ‘Δάματερ, μέγα χαῖρε, πολυτρόφε πουλυμέδιμνε.’ τὸν κάλαθον κατιόντα χαμαὶ θασεῖσθε, βέβαλοι… 127 H. 6.120-121: χὠς αἱ τὸν κάλαθον λευκότριχες ἵπποι ἄγοντι τέσσαρες, […] 128 For the λίκνον, see Hopkinson (1984), 42-43; Krauskopf (2005b). 129 H. 6.126-127: ὡς δ’ αἱ λικνοφόροι χρυσῶ πλέα λίκνα φέροντι, ὣς ἁμὲς τὸν χρυσὸν ἀφειδέα πασεύμεσθα. 130 H. 6.124: ὡς δ’ ἀπεδίλωτοι καὶ ἀνάμπυκες ἄστυ πατεῦμες 131 H. 6.128-129: μέστα τὰ τᾶς πόλιος πρυτανήια τὰς ἀτελέστως, †τὰς δὲ τελεσφορίας† ποτὶ τὰν θεὸν ἄχρις ὁμαρτεῖν. 132 P.Oxy. XXXVI 2782.2 (after 217 AD), discussed more thoroughly above, p. 23-24.

28 procession in the context of which he mentions Thesmophorion.133 The archaeological evidence provides additional confirmation for the fact that the kalathos was the cultic object par excellence of the ‘Egyptian’ Demeter, as it is one of the most frequent attributes associated with the goddess in iconography. This will become evident below when I discuss some iconographical instances related to

Egyptian Demeter.

Apart from Arsinoe II Philadelphus, Philotera, i.e. Arsinoe’s younger sister who died a year before the queen and was deified right after her, or, more probably, her sister’s, death, was associated with Demeter.134 Philotera is one of the protagonists in Callimachus’ fragmentary elegiac poem on the death and deification of Arsinoe (fr. 228 Pf.); there, she is presented as learning of her sister’s death while at the island of Lemnos, upon noticing the smoke coming from Arsinoe’s funeral pyre in Alexandria. The point of relevance is that she is depicted as returning from the Sicilian city of Enna, where she is said to have visited Demeter (fr. 228.40-45

Pf.);135 this may reflect a possible association of Philotera with Demeter in the dynastic cult that is not attested elsewhere. As noted by scholars, Callimachus’ poem on Arsinoe’s ektheosis is modelled in terms of its narrative form on the Homeric

Hymn to Demeter: Philotera is portrayed as Demeter since both of them have lost a

133 See above, p. 15. 134 Philotera is mentioned together with Ptolemy II Philadelphus in OGIS I 35; the latter founded and named after her a town in the Jordan valley (Strabo 16.4.5.4-6; cf. Polyb. 5.70.3-4 on ‘Φιλοτερία᾿), while he is said to have built a temple in honour of the two sisters in Alexandria (Schol. Theocr. Id. 17.123d Wendel). Furthermore, according to PP IX 5361, the high priest of Ptah, Nesisty II, was responsible also for the cults of Ramses II, Arsinoe II and Philotera; cf. Hölbl (2001), 103. See also Ashton (2001), 37, who refers to a statue representing the priestess of Philotera named Heresankh accompanied by an inscription in hieroglyphic, which was found in the Sarapeion at Memphis (Louvre Museum no. 2456). For Philotera in general, see Pfeiffer (1922), 14-37; Macurdy (1932), 127-128; Regner (1941), esp. 1290-1291; Thompson (1988), 131. 135 Enna is mentioned also in Callim. H. 6.30 as a favourite place of Demeter. See Hopkinson (1984), 106-107 ad loc. According to Cicero (Verr. 2.4.106-109, 3.5.188), Enna was the birthplace and the place par excellence of Demeter, as well as the location of Persephone’s abduction. A similar account is found in Diod. Sic. 5.3-5; cf. Claud. De rapt. Pros. On Demeter in Enna, see e.g. Zuntz (1971); Hinz (1998), 121-124; Schipporeit (2008).

29 beloved person, while Arsinoe is the counterpart of Persephone as they were both carried away by gods (Persephone by Hades, Arsinoe by the Dioscuri), and finally

Charis has the same role as Hecate and Helios in the Homeric hymn, since she is the one who is sent to look and who conveys the message of the queen’s death.136

According to the Diegesis, the poem narrated also the construction of an altar and a precinct in honour of Arsinoe near the harbour of Alexandria.137 Similarly, the

Homeric Hymn to Demeter concludes with the foundation of a temple of Demeter by the people of Eleusis.138 If the parallelism of the two poems was as close as inferred and if the literary connection indeed reflected the official realm, it may function as evidence that Demeter’s mythological and religious cycle held an important role in the Ptolemaic ideological programme, especially with regard to Arsinoe and

Philotera, and as such was exploited by the poet Callimachus.

However, it is with the next Ptolemaic queen, Berenice II, that the assimilation with Demeter becomes more prominent and apparent.139 She, along with her husband Ptolemy III, appear as Theoi Euergetai (‘Benefactor Gods’) four years after their accession to the throne, i.e. in 243/242 BC.140 Around that time, shortly after his return from the Third Syrian War, Ptolemy III had to deal with an uprising of the native Egyptian people, as well as with an insufficient flooding of the Nile (in the year 245 BC), both of which led to a severe shortage of grain in Egypt. Ptolemy

III confronted the famine problem with a massive import of grain from Syria,

136 This and the following observations were made by Hunter (2003), 50-51, and previously (mainly with regard to the similar wording between this passage and Callim. H. 6.9) by Pfeiffer (1922), 31-33; Wilamowitz (1924) II 33-34; Hopkinson (1984), 88. On this passage see also Fraser (1972), I 669; Griffiths (1979), 59-60. 137 Dieg. 10.10: φησὶν δὲ αὐτὴν ἀνηρπάσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν Διοσκούρων καὶ βωμὸν καὶ τέμενος αὐτῆς καθιδρῦσθαι πρὸς τῷ Ἐμπορίῳ. 138 Hymn. Hom. Cer. 270-272, 296-298. 139 For Berenice’s assimilation to Isis and Aphrodite see Thompson (1973), 60-62. 140 The first reference to the Theoi Euergetai is found in P.Hib. I 171, dated to 243/242 BC. See Fraser (1972) I 219; Hölbl (2001), 49.

30

Phoenicia, Cyprus and other places with good grain production. This benevolence of

Ptolemy III is commemorated in his (and his wife’s) epithet Euergetes and is recorded in the Canopus Decree.141 The latter was issued by the assembly of the

Egyptian priests on the occasion of the king’s birthday and the anniversary of his accession to the throne (7th March 238 BC),142 and its purpose was to honour the royal couple as Theoi Euergetai as well as regulate the maintenance and establishment of temple rituals, processions and festivals.143 Among the newly instituted rituals were the cultic honours for the recently deceased princess Berenice

III (143-153 BC); according to the Decree, a statue had to be erected in her honour, which was to be distinguished from that of her mother in the form of the crown: it had to consist of two ears of corn with a serpent-shaped crown in the middle and behind it a papyrus-shaped sceptre, similar to the one that the goddesses normally held.144 To this particular statue the holy virgins were expected to dedicate the early ripe ears of corn,145 while when provisions were to be given to the priestly personnel, the bread offered to the wives of the priests had to have its own distinguished shape and to be called ‘the bread of Berenice’.146 Overall, what may be extracted from the

Canopus Decree is the emphasis on the royal couples’ benefaction consisting of their gift of grain, which was to be exemplified on the iconography of Berenice’s III statue and dedicatory gifts.

141 See OGIS I 56.13-20 (= Austin 271) for an account of the events. On the Canopus Decree, see Hölbl (2001), 105-110; Manning (2003), 68 n. 20. 142 See OGIS I 56.5-6. 143 See OGIS I 56.20-46. 144 OGIS I 56.61-63: εἶναι δὲ τὴν ἐπιτιθεμένην βασιλείαν τῇ εἰκόνι αὐτῆς διαφέρουσαν τῆς ἐπιτιθεμένης | ταῖς εἰκόσιν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς βασιλίσσης Βερενίκης ἐκ σταχύων δύο, ὧν ἀνὰ μέσον ἔσται ἡ ἀσπιδοειδὴς βασιλεία, ταύτης δ’ ὀπίσω σύμμετρον σκῆπτρον | παπυροειδές, ὃ εἰώθασιν αἱ θεαὶ ἔχειν ἐν ταῖς χερσίν. 145 OGIS I 56.68: καὶ ὅταν ὁ πρώϊμος σπόρος παραστῇ, ἀναφέρειν τὰς ἱερὰς παρθένους στάχυς τοὺς παρατεθησομένους τῷ ἀγάλματι τῆς θεοῦ. 146 OGIS I 56.72-73: καὶ τὸν διδόμενον ἄρτον ταῖς γυναιξὶν | τῶν ἱερέων ἔχειν ἴδιον τύπον καὶ καλεῖσθαι Βερενίκης ἄρτον.

31

Hence, the association of Theoi Euergetai, especially Berenice II (and

Berenice III), with Demeter as the grain-giving, beneficent goddess was a natural procedure.147 An additional detail which contributed to Berenice’s II special connection with Demeter is that her homeland was Cyrene, where Demeter’s cult was very prominent at the time and earlier, as will be illustrated in the next chapter.

Relevant in this connection is the large ‘Aphrodite relief’ (dated to the middle or third quarter of the third century BC) placed in the agora of Cyrene next to the

Demeter and Kore sanctuary, which depicted Demeter and Kore on the two edges with Aphrodite and Eros in the centre. The fact that Demeter and Kore were not the central figures of the relief, despite its location, has led scholars to suggest that

Aphrodite’s image was an idealised depiction of Berenice II, who was linked with the two goddesses in that guise.148

Berenike’s II association with Demeter is more explicit in other instances of the former’s iconography where she is presented as assimilated (or linked) with

Demeter herself through the adoption of attributes that point to the fertility aspect of the goddess. In coinage for instance, the association with Demeter is attested on the representation of the cornucopia on the reverse of a common type of Berenice’s II coins.149 The cornucopia is one of the most common attributes on Ptolemaic coinage, sculpture, vase iconography, etc. and is classified among the symbols of fertility and prosperity, usually connected with deities of agriculture (such as Demeter, Pluto,

Dionysus). In the Classical period, the cornucopia was usually empty, but in some instances it contained fruits and pyramidal cakes, i.e. the common sacrificial

147 Pantos (1987), 349. 148 Ridgway (1990), 366-367 with fig. 40. Cf. Moreno (1994), I 338 with fig. 422, who argues that Aphrodite’s figure on the relief was inspired by Phidias’ Aphrodite Urania, as an allusion to the ‘celestial’ character of the apotheosis of Berenice’s lock. 149 For Berenice’s II coins, see Kyrieleis (1975), 94-96 pl. 82 no. 1-4; Mørkholm (1991), 106-108.

32 offerings.150 Whereas the cornucopia on Arsinoe II Philadelphus’ coinage was double

(δίκερας) and always contained fruits and/or pyramidal cakes,151 the cornucopia on

Berenice’s II coins was single and usually included a small cake, fruits and a cornstalk.152 As mentioned above, the latter was the main attribute of Demeter; thus its appearance on the queen’s iconography emphasised her association with the goddess as they both gave grain. Interestingly, this specific style of cornucopia with ears of corn came to be so closely linked to the Ptolemies that whenever it was depicted on Syrian or Athenian coins it was thought of as denoting a relationship with Egypt.153 Similar depictions were found on the oinochoai produced during

Berenice II’s reign,154 with the difference that on some of them the cakes in the cornucopiae gradually disappeared completely and were substituted by three long ears of grain.155

As far as glyptic is concerned, there are some examples which appear to feature depictions of the queen herself in the guise of Demeter. The scholars’ argumentation regarding the identification of the queen on gemstones were based on known depictions of Berenice II, mainly in coinage, as well as her special link to

Demeter, as was analysed above. Thus, a type of sphragis found in the archives of

Kallipolis depicting a Ptolemaic queen with a veil and a crown of cornstalks and

150 Thompson (1973), 31-32; Ashton (2001), 151-154. It also had a prominent role in the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, where the Eniautos carries it; see Callixenus FrGRH 3 F2.115; cf. Rice (1983), 49. On the date of the procession, see the summary of bibliography in Hunter (2003a), 2 n. 5, 6. 151 The double horn was most possibly an innovation of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. It symbolised the ‘double’ prosperity and the twin rulers. See Thompson (1973), 32-33. 152 BMC pl. 13 no. 2 (from Ephesus), no. 3 (uncertain provenance), no. 4-6 (from Cyrene); Mørkholm (1991), pl. 19 no. 307 (from Alexandria), pl. 20 no. 313 (from Ephesus). Cf. Thompson (1973), 33. 153 Thompson (1973), 32. 154 Thompson (1973), 33-34 with pl. 25-27 no. 75, pl. 28 no. 76, pl. 35 no. 101-102, pl. 42 no. 120, pl. 44 no. 125. 155 Thompson (1973), 34 with pl. 7 no. 17, pl. 11 no. 29, pl. 38 no. 109.

33 poppies on her head,156 i.e. both attributes of Demeter,157 has been considered as portraying Berenice II.158 Similarly, a cameo of the third century BC depicting a veiled woman with a crown decorated with an ear of corn again points to a representation of Berenice II in the guise of Demeter.159 Finally, another representation of a veiled queen with a cornstalk on her hair which was found on the carnelian intaglio of a ring must also be classified among Berenice’s II representations with Demeter’s attributes.160 Overall, it is evident that Berenice II maintained and, more importantly, reinforced her predecessor’s religious policy, especially with regard to her assimilation with Demeter.

The succeeding queens’ association with Demeter was primarily in her guise as Isis-Demeter. Some Phoenician coins (221-204 BC) depict the jugate busts of

Ptolemy IV Philopator and Arsinoe III with attributes of Zeus-Sarapis and Isis-

Demeter respectively.161 The king is portrayed with a laurel wreath and the Osiris crown while the queen has an ear of grain and the crown of Hathor-Isis on her head.162 Similarly, coins from Cyprus (180-176 BC) depict Cleopatra I, wife of

Ptolemy V Epiphanes, as Isis-Demeter with the ‘Libyan Locks’ and an ear of grain.163 Cleopatra III (161-101 BC),164 the wife of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II who

156 The sphragis was published by Pantos (1985), 351-354 no. 274, 509-511 pl. 39-40. Pantos (1987), 351, dates it to the third century BC, most possibly near to 245, based on the fact that the queen is depicted with short hair, which might point to Berenice’s consecration of her lock of hair after her husband’s return from the Third Syrian War. 157 Such depictions are reminiscent of coins of the third century BC portraying Demeter as a veiled woman with an ear of corn on her head. See Minas (1998), 47 with n. 20 for references to the coins. 158 See Pantos (1987), passim. 159 See Vollenweider (1979), 40 pl. 16.2-2a no. 38. Cf. Pantos (1987), 344; Minas (1998), 47. 160 For the gem, see Marshall (1907), 67 pl. 11 no. 367. On the identification, see Minas (1998), 47. Contra Kyrieleis (1975), 80, who considered this as one of the two certain ring portraits of Arsinoe II Philadelphus. 161 E.g. Svoronos (1904-1908), pl. 36b no. 13-16; Mørkholm (1991), 110. 162 Van Oppen de Ruiter (2007), 79 n. 104, 146-147. 163 Svoronos (1904-1908), pl. 40a no. 7-12, pl. 40b no. 14, 15, 18, pl. 47. no. 11, 15, pl. 51 no. 10. Cf. Van Oppen de Ruiter (2007), 147. 164 On Cleopatra III, see Hölbl (2001), 195-197, 207-209, 285-289.

34 ruled jointly with her husband and mother Cleopatra II (124-115 BC) and later with her son Ptolemy IX (116-107 BC), manifested her association with Demeter in a different way. In the beginning of her first reign she identified herself with Isis and established a special eponymous priesthood for her in that guise,165 whose title was

‘The Sacred Foil’ (Ἱερὸς Πόλος). Α priesthood with the same title was associated with the cult of Demeter and Persephone in Laconia, thus it is very probable that the

Isis with whom Cleopatra III was identified was Isis-Demeter, or, at least, that this specific priesthood was related to that aspect of the queen-goddess.166 It contributes to this idea that Cleopatra III was called Thea Eurgetis, an epithet she shared with her husband (and her mother); it is reminiscent of the beneficiary grain-giving of

Ptolemy III and Berenice II, the first Theoi Euergetai, who were closely linked to

Demeter. Furthermore, at a later point, Cleopatra III acquired three more priestesses who served her as Cleopatra Philometor Soteira Dikaiosyne Nikephoros.167 The epithet Dikaiosyne, as mentioned above with regard to the dedication to Demeter and

Kore, is associated with Demeter Thesmophoros.168 Therefore, it is very likely that

Cleopatra III followed her predecessor Thea Euergetis in her assimilation with

Demeter or, in this case, Isis-Demeter.169

165 That is, Fraser’s third category of a queen’s identification with a goddess; see above, p. 26. 166 Fraser (1972), I 221, 244; II 279 n. 436; Thomson (1998), 702; Hölbl (2001), 287. 167 Thompson (1998), 702; Hölbl (2001), 287-288. 168 See p. 18. 169 Another piece of evidence which links the Ptolemaic (?) royal couple with Isis-Demeter is the Farnese Cup, a cameo cup from Alexandria. Its manufacture date has been greatly disputed, with suggested dates spanning from the third to the first centuries BC. The three central figures have been considered as depicting Horus/Harpocrates-Triptolemus, Isis-Demeter(-Euthenia) and Nile-Osiris, accompanied by a sphinx, two nymphs (or Horai) and two winds. The entire scene has been thought as an allegory of the prosperity of Egypt under Ptolemaic (or early Roman) rule, while some scholars have suggested that the triad symbolises of the royal family. See Plantzos (1996), 45-54, for a presentation of the cameo, a summary of previous views and an interpretation of it as a religious allegory of the Isis-Osiris-Nile myth.

35

In the following final part of the chapter, I briefly present some iconographical motifs related to Demeter which are found on Alexandrian coins from the Roman period (dated from 30/29 BC to 296/297 AD).170 Although these constitute much later evidence, they still attest for the goddess’ importance in Egypt at a later date, while they may shed some light on the form of Demeter’s cult in the area in earlier times as well, if we suppose that her cult in the Roman period was a continuation of preceding religious practices. Skowronek and Tkaczow classify

Demeter’s Roman Alexandrian coins into different groups on the basis of the subject they depict.171 A group of coins depicts Demeter herself with or without her attributes, either alone or accompanied by other deities, such as Isis, Sarapis,

Dioscuri, Athena, Harpocrates and Euthenia. The last mentioned was a new goddess, the consort of the Nile, and first appeared on coins in the end of the first century BC.

She is usually depicted with ears of grain on her head, either standing or seated on a throne or a rock, sometimes accompanied by a sphinx or two ships.172 She was considered the personification of wealth and well-being and as the wife of the Nile she was assimilated with Isis, the wife of Sarapis.173 A different category depicts

Persephone’s abduction, while another portrays Triptolemus on a chariot.

Furthermore, attributes of Demeter, such as cornstalks and poppies, as well as cult objects associated with her worship, such as the kalathos, torches and chariots of oxen or horses are depicted separately on coins. Another group consists of depictions

170 See Skowronek and Tkaczow (1981), 137 with n. 46 for references to catalogues of Roman coins from Alexandria. An additional type of evidence from the beginning of the Roman period is the game counters (tesserae) of bone or ivory which were made in Alexandria. Some of these tesserae depict a building on the obverse, which on the reverse is denoted as ‘Eleusinion’. See Alföldi-Rosenbaum (1976), 231 with pl. 21 no. 28-32. 171 Skowronek and Tkaczow (1981), 138-142. The corresponding part of their paper is the basis of the current presentation of the Roman Alexandrian coins. 172 Kákosy (1982), 291. 173 Poole (1892), lxxviii-lxxx.

36 with Demeter’s epithets, such as Homonoia, Eirene and Dikaiosyne. Finally, later coins from Domitian’s reign depict the emperor and his wife with attributes of

Demeter-Ceres. The popularity of elements associated with Demeter or her wider mythological spectrum on Roman coins is related to the Roman emperors’ intention of promoting the blessed fertility of Egypt and the role of Egypt in supporting the

Roman state with the supply of grain.174 Thus, in adopting Demeter-related motifs which possibly derived from the Ptolemaic period, the Roman emperors follow the

Ptolemies in using Demeter’s cult as an instrument of propaganda.

What the above analysis of the evidence of Demeter’s cult in Ptolemaic

Egypt has demonstrated is that Demeter was a very important goddess in Egypt, one who appealed both to native and to immigrant groups and was worshipped both in the Greek cities of Egypt and in the chora. The great number of references to the celebration of Thesmophoria in various places of Egypt is indicative of the fact that she was worshipped primarily as a fertility goddess. It has also been illustrated that the great diffusion of her cult was largely indebted to her assimilation with Isis, an

Egyptian goddess who came into the foreground with her adoption and adaptation in

Ptolemaic religion. Demeter’s cult was also promoted by the Ptolemies who associated themselves with the goddess in their iconography and cult, emphasising her role as the patroness of agriculture, since the crops’ production was a basic concern of the Ptolemaic state. Finally, it is important to note that Demeter in Egypt appears to have prominence on her own, i.e. usually not accompanied by Kore, whose role in Ptolemaic religion is minor (taking however into account that details of

174 Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.43, who emphasises the role of Egypt as the granary of Rome; Plin. Pan. 29, who mentions that the supply of wheat for Rome was one of the main concerns of the ruler. Roman emperor’s interest in Demeter is also attested in their interest in the Eleusinian mysteries. See Skowronek and Tkaczow (1981), 142 for references to ancient sources.

37 the festivals’ celebration are not known). This is an important development compared to her cult in mainland Greece where she commonly appears paired with

Kore, sharing temples and rituals with her. This phenomenon may explained on the basis of her assimilation with Isis and the emphasis on her agricultural aspect rather than that of the mother – despite the fact that these two are interrelated in myth and ritual.

38

Chapter 2

Demeter in Cyrene

As noted in the introduction of this part, the consideration of Cyrenean Demeter is prompted by Cyrene’s significance both for Callimachus and for the Ptolemies. The latter, together with the popularity of Demeter’s cult in Cyrene, are the factors that led some scholars to consider the city of Cyrene as the setting for the poet’s Hymn to

Demeter.175 More specifically, Cyrene was the birthplace of Callimachus,176 who claimed to have descended from the king Battus,177 the leader of the first colonists of

Cyrene coming from the Dorian island of Thera after consulting the Delphic

Oracle.178 Callimachus himself refers to the colonisation of Cyrene in his Hymn to

Apollo,179 where he praises the god primarily as the patron of his homeland and the dynasty of the Battiads.180 The poet’s interest in Cyrene, which is evident elsewhere

175 See e.g. Kuiper (1898), II 43-45; Anti (1929), 227-230; Coppola (1935), 5-6; Chamoux (1953), 266 n. 1; Meillier (1979); Laronde (1987), 363-364; Bacchielli (1990), 22-25.; Pretagostini (1991), 259-261. 176 See the funerary epigram composed for his father, Ep. 21.1-2 Pf.: Ὅστις ἐμὸν παρὰ σῆμα φέρεις πόδα, Καλλιμάχου με ἴσθι Κυρηναίου παῖδά τε καὶ γενέτην. 177 See Ep. 35 Pf.: Βαττιάδεω παρὰ σῆμα φέρεις πόδας εὖ μὲν ἀοιδήν εἰδότος, εὖ δ’ οἴνῳ καίρια συγγελάσαι. 178 For Cyrene’s foundation see Hdt. 4.150-158; Strabo 17.3.21. Archaeological evidence illustrates that along with the Therans, a number of Cretan, Laconian, Samian and Rhodian settlers had possibly participated in the colonisation of Cyrene; see Chamoux (1953), 92-114; White (1984), 23-27; Schaus (1985), 96-105. 179 H. 4.65-87. On the relation of Callimachus’ account of Cyrene’s foundation and Pindar’s in Pyth. 4, 5 and 9 see Calame (1993), passim; Ambühl (2005), 337-348. Cf. Stephens (2003), 179-182, who discusses Cyrene’s foundation as a paradigm for the foundation of Alexandria at the end of book 4 of Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica. 180 In lines 68 (ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν) and 71 (ἐμοὶ πατρώον) he once again emphasises his own affinity with the Battiads (if we accept that the poet’s persona lies behind the narrator, cf. Morrison 2007: 123-137). Cf. Williams (1978), 65; Barbantani (2011), 190-192. For Apollo’s role in the

39 in his work,181 other than being a ‘personal matter’,182 is in line with contemporary historical developments leading to increasing Ptolemaic involvement in Cyrene.183

Cyrene and the wider area of Cyrenaica had close relations with Egypt long before the Ptolemies arrived.184 Cyrene first became part of the Ptolemaic kingdom in 321/320 BC under Ptolemy I Soter who restructured the city’s constitution,185 a move that left the city nominally independent with Ptolemy as the supervisor of the oligarchical constitution. A revolt in 313/312 BC led Ptolemy to restore his general

Ophellas in Cyrene, who in the following years acted independently (attack on

Syracuse). After the latter’s death, a period of repetitive reassertions of dominance by Ptolemy I and independence by Cyreneans followed. However, in c. 305 BC

Ptolemy I managed to regain the control and assigned Cyrene’s administration to his stepson Magas (c. 300 BC). The latter around the year 275 BC imposed himself as the king of Cyrene, declared independence, married the daughter of Antiochus I,

Apame, and with the help of the Seleucids turned against Ptolemy II Philadelphus.

The period that followed was marked by hostilities and political tension between the two cities, as Egypt sought eagerly to reclaim it.186 Nevertheless, Ptolemaic control was re-established in Cyrene in 246 BC through the marriage of Berenice II, Magas’ foundation of Cyrene, see SEG IX 3.7-8, 17-18, 25; IX 72.1. Cf. Chamoux (1953), 104-107; Fraser (1972), II 919 n. 309, 310. 181 For Cyrene in Callimachus’ work see Lehnus (1994), passim. 182 It is not known at what stage(s) of his life he lived in Cyrene. For Callimachus and Cyrene see Pfeiffer (1953), II xxxviii-xxxix; Fraser (1972), I 786-789; Cameron (1995), 3-11. On Cyrene in general and in relation to Callimachus, see the recent discussion in Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2012), 3-10. 183 A thorough account of the Ptolemies’ administration of Cyrene is found in Bagnal (1976), 25-37. 184 On the Libyan kings of Egypt in the Third Intermediate Period (1069-664 BC), see Naunton (2010). In the Saite period (664-525 BC), Pharaoh Apries sent troops from Egypt to support Cyrenaica’s king Adikran against Cyrene’s Battus II; see Hdt. 2.161-162, 4.159; Diod. Sic. 1.68.2-4. His successor Amasis married Ladike, daughter of Battus III, thus establishing an alliance with the area; see Hdt. 2.181. Cf. Perdu (2010), 147-148, on these events. Cyrene formed a satrapy along with Libya, Cyrene, and Barca under Persian rule (Hdt. 3.91). For Egypt and Cyrene before the Ptolemies, see Chamoux (1953), 38-68. 185 SEG IX 1. See Laronde (1987), 85-128. 186 Hölbl (2001), 39.

40 daughter, with Ptolemy III Euergetes, son of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Arsinoe II

Philadelphus.187 After its annexation to the Ptolemaic kingdom, the whole area was re-organised and became part of a new league of cities (Κοινόν).188 The close relationship between the Ptolemaic kingdom and Cyrene which persisted through the years is best illustrated by the great amount of Cyrenean coins issued by the

Ptolemies,189 as well as the existence of a large community of immigrants from

Cyrene in Alexandria.190

Demeter held a very prominent position in the religious life in the area,191 second only to Apollo’s importance as the patron god of Cyrene.192 The cult of

Demeter and Kore appears to have been transferred to Cyrene from the colonists’ motherlands where the worship of the two goddesses is confirmed by archaeological finds.193 In addition, some late literary sources report a transgression story involving

Battus I and Demeter taking place at a festival of the latter in Cyrene. According to these accounts, Battus wished to learn about the ‘mysteries’ of the Thesmophoria, but was allowed to watch only the first part of the ceremony which contained nothing out of ordinary; unsatisfied with what he saw, he tried to participate in the

‘forbidden’ part of the festival, with the result that the σφάκτριαι attacked and

187 Callimachus in the third and fourth books of his Aetia dedicated two poems to Berenice II: the Victoria Berenices (SH 254–269) and the Coma Berenices (fr. 110 Pf.= fr. 110 Harder; Catul. 66). The former is an epinician celebrating Berenice’s chariot victory at the Nemean Games of 245 or 241 BC and the latter refers to the queen’s dedication of her lock of hair when Ptolemy III Euergetes returned safe and victorious from the Third Syrian War in 246 BC. See e.g. Fraser (1972), I 729-730; II 1021- 1026; Prioux (2011), 202-203. 188 Laronde (1987), 381-415; Hölbl (2001), 45-47. 189 For the coins see Mørkholm (1991), 65-70, 101-102 with pl. 7 no. 107-129, pl. 17 no. 286-288, pl. 18 no. 289-290. 190 See e.g. Clarysse (1998), 2-4. Cf. Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2012), 8. 191 Notably, Demeter appears in the ending of Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo (111-112). See my discussion of these lines in chapter 4 and 5. 192 A temple of Apollo was built in the sixth century BC; see Bonacasa and Ensoli (2000), 105-118. Cults of other gods, such as Artemis, Athena, Zeus Olympius and Leto were also present in the city. See Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2012), 8-9 with references to bibliography. 193 White (1984), 23-27.

41 castrated him.194 This account is important because it acknowledges the early existence of Demeter’s cult in Cyrene and because it associates the founder of the city with the goddess, even in a context of transgression and punishment.195

Archaeological evidence indicates the establishment of an extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Kore around thirty years after the foundation of Cyrene, i.e. at some point between the end of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth century BC.196 It soon became the centre of Demeter’s and Kore’s popular cult in the area,197 as indicated by the great number of votives and other objects recovered from the sanctuary, such as pottery, statues, statuettes, terracotta/bronze/faience figurines, glass, jewellery, ornaments, stone inscriptions, gems and several coins, all either locally produced or imported.198 Furthermore, a great amount of piglet bone remains points to a possible celebration of Thesmophoria.199 Architectural remains illustrate that the sanctuary had expanded rapidly from the Hellenistic period

194 Ael. fr. 44 Herscher = Suda α 4329, s.v. Ἀτέγκτοις: Αἰλιανός· οἶκτόν γε μὴν καὶ δάκρυα ἐμβαλοῦσαι πάντας, ὡς καὶ τοὺς ἀτέγκτους τε καὶ ἀτεράμονας τέγξαι. καὶ Ἀτέγκτως, ἐσχάτως. καὶ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα ἱέρειαι ἐπειρῶντο αὐτὸν πραΰνειν καὶ ἀντέχειν τῆς ὁρμῆς. βιαίως δὲ καὶ ἀτέγκτως διακειμένου, τῶν μὲν ἀπορρήτων καὶ ἃ μὴ ἰδεῖν λῷον ἦν, τούτων οὐκ ἐκοινώνουν οἱ· τῶν δὲ πρώτων καὶ ἐξ ὧν οὔτε τοῖς θεασαμένοις οὔτε τοῖς δείξασιν ἔμελλέ τι ἀπαντήσεσθαι δεινὸν, παρεῖχόν οἱ βλέπειν ταῦτα. καὶ αὖθις· ἱκανὰ πείθειν καὶ δυσωπεῖν τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν μὴ παντάπασιν ἀτέγκτους καὶ ἀτεράμονας ταύτας ἐχόντων. Αἰλιανός· ἦν δὲ ἄτεγκτος ὅδε ὁ παῖς καὶ ἀμείλικτος, καί οἱ ἐπέταττεν ἐπίπονα καὶ κινδύνων ἐχόμενα τῶν ἐσχάτων; Suda θ 272, s.v. Θεσμοφόρος: ὅτι Βάττος ὁ Κυρήνην κτίσας τῆς Θεσμοφόρου τὰ μυστήρια ἐγλίχετο μαθεῖν καὶ προσῆγε βίαν λίχνοις ὀφθαλμοῖς χαριζόμενος; Suda σ 1590, s.v. σύνθημα: αἱ δὲ ἀθρόαι ὑφ’ ἑνὶ συνθήματι ἐπὶ τὸν Βάττον ᾖξαν, ἵνα αὐτὸν ἀφέλωνται τὸ ἔτι εἶναι ἄνδρα; Suda σ 1714, s.v. σφάκτριαι: ἱέρειαι. μετὰ τῆς ἱερᾶς στολῆς ὅλαι τελούμεναι μυστικῶς σφάκτριαι καταλειφθεῖσαι καὶ αἴρουσαι τὰ ξίφη γυμνά, καὶ αὗται καταπλέας ἔχουσαι τοῦ αἵματος τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα μέντοι, ἦσαν δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἱερείων χρισάμεναι, ἀθρόαι ὑφ’ ἑνὶ συνθήματι ἐπὶ τὸν Βάττον ᾖξαν, ἵνα αὐτὸν ἀφέλωνται τοῦ ἔτι εἶναι ἄνδρα. See the discussions of Chamoux (1953), 265-268; Detienne (1989), passim. 195 There are more similar stories of transgression involving men and Demeter, such as Miltiades on Paros (Hdt. 6.134), Peisistratus at Eleusis (Aen. Tact. 4.8-11), Solon at Colias (Plut. Vit. Sol. 8), Aristomenes of Messenia (Paus. 4.17.1). 196 The universally accepted date for Cyrene’s foundation is 631/630. See Chamoux (1953), 120-124; Boardman (1966), 153-156; Schaus (1985), 101; White (2008), 161. On the foundation of the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, see White (1984), 23; Schaus (1985), 93; White (2008), 161. 197 White (1981), 23-24. Overall, the archaeological evidence indicates that the extramural sanctuary was dedicated to both Demeter and Kore (probably worshiped in separate spaces as well). 198 White (2008), 162-163, with references to individual studies for each kind of artefacts. Cf. White (1981), 23. 199 White (1981), 22, 24.

42 onwards; according to White, the sanctuary in its later stages exceeded in size and complexity of structure even the greatest Demeter sanctuaries in mainland Greece and Asia Minor, such as Corinth, Priene and Pergamon.200

Additionally, archaeological remains found near the city’s agora are believed to have been part of an open-air precinct of Demeter dated to c. 550-525 BC.201 It is also notable that Cyrene’s daughter colony Taucheira (Tocra) appears to have established its own sanctuary dedicated to Demeter almost immediately after its foundation in c. 620 BC.202 Furthermore, more recent excavations brought to light another precinct situated near the extramural sanctuary, which is believed to have been dedicated to Demeter as well.203 This would mean that Cyrene hosted two different extramural sanctuaries serving the same deities, thus rendering the ‘entire chora region to the south and southeast of the city […] consecrated to the two goddesses’.204

The diffusion and popularity of Demeter’s cult in Cyrene, notably from the initial stages of the colony’s foundation, may be explained in several ways. First, settling in a new, unfamiliar environment would naturally lead the people to turn to the goddess of agriculture and fertility in order to facilitate the establishment in the new territory and to secure the survival of the community.205 Cyrene in particular was renowned for its fertility,206 and in fact its economy was based on the exports of

200 White (1981), 19; White (2008), 161-162. 201 White (2008), 161 with n. 9. 202 Schaus (1985), 93 with references. 203 Luni (2001), passim, argues that the precinct had contained a fifth-century Doric sanctuary of Demeter. 204 White (2008), 165. 205 White (1981), 24-25. Cf. White (1984), 29-30; Schaus (1985), 93, who suggests that a primitive sanctuary of Demeter might have been established from the very foundation of the colony, on the basis of the new settlers’ concerns about the fertility of the land and crops. 206 Cf. e.g. Pind. Pyth. 4.6: καρποφόρου Λιβύας; 9.7: πολυκαρποτάτας […] χθονός.

43 wheat, barley, olive oil and its native plant silphium.207 As noted by White, famine and desolation of land – or fear thereof – were not the only factors determining the development of Demeter’s cult; equally important was the maintenance of a steady cult in order to prevent problems in the natural agricultural process,208 and to express gratitude for the goddess’ benevolence, one may add.

Furthermore, the sanctuary’s position just outside the urban area renders it as a transitional and unifying space between the city and the country. Especially as the city developed, the need to maintain an agricultural territory was deemed necessary, but such assertions might have been received with scepticism by the locals. The existence of dedications (such as portraits) of mixed Greek-Libyan or merely Libyan origin, as the names of the dedicators/subjects reveal, suggests some form of syncretism, or at least, native acceptance of Demeter’s cult and its importance for the management of agriculture.209 The sanctuary (or sanctuaries, as we have seen) of

Demeter, a goddess concerned with both rural and urban spheres, functioned as an intermediary between the Greek colonists and native populations.210

Finally, it is necessary to note that another factor which contributed to the diffusion of the Demeter’s cult in Cyrene in the Hellenistic period – and most possibly earlier – was her association with Isis, in a similar way as in Egypt.

According to Herodotus, Isis was known and worshipped in Cyrene in his time; in

207 See, for instance, the account of the geographer Polemon (second century BC) regarding the establishment of a cult for Demeter Libyssa in Argos in memory of the grain sent from Libya at a time of famine (FGrH 3 F 119. 12: ἐν τῇ Ἀργείᾳ σπαρέντος τῶν πυρῶν σπέρματος, ἐκ Λιβύης Ἄργου μεταπεμψαμένου· διὸ καὶ Δήμητρος Λιβύσσης ἱερὸν ἵδρυσεν ἐν τῷ Ἄργει, ἐν Χαράδρᾳ οὕτω καλουμένῳ τόπῳ). Cf. Farnell (1907), III 69, 323. For Cyrene’s exports, including silphium, see Chamoux (1953), 229-263. 208 White (2008), 164: ‘this, more than anything else, helps explain the need to keep up a steady flow of pottery, terracottas, lamps and the other repetitive forms of inexpensive, mass-produced dedications which accumulate in such numbers in the Cyrene extramural and Tauchiran sanctuaries prior to 550 BC and well beyond’. 209 White (1987), 76-78; (2008), 164; Kane (2008), 167-168. 210 Kane (2008), 167. These themes will be elaborated in chapter 6, p. 198-199.

44 his account of the Cyrenean women’s dietary habits, he mentions that they considered it wrong to eat cow’s meat because of Isis of Egypt, whom they honoured with fasts and festivals.211 Moreover, it has been suggested that a number of crescent pendants of the fourth and later centuries which were dedicated in the Demeter’s sanctuaries in Tocra and Cyrene must be attributed to the Demeter and Isis association, as the crescent is a symbol closely connected with Isis.212 Thus, although

Demeter’s cult in Cyrene was centuries old by the time the Ptolemies arrived, it is very probable that her association with the Egyptian goddess, who was also present in the area (owing to the long-standing close relations with Egypt and the vicinity of the two lands) took place earlier for similar reasons as in Egypt, and was possibly emphasised or further promoted under the influence of the Ptolemies.213

211 Hdt. 4.186: Βοῶν μέν νυν θηλέων οὐδ’ αἱ Κυρηναίων γυναῖκες δικαιοῦσι πατέεσθαι διὰ τὴν ἐν ΑἰγύπτῳἾσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ νηστηίας αὐτῇ καὶ ὁρτὰς ἐπιτελέουσι. 212 Warden (1990), 23. 213 A parallel to Isis’ presence in Cyrene from an early period is cult of Zeus Ammon. Cyreneans came into contact with the god Ammon possibly on the Siwah oasis (the same oracle that Alexander consulted before his departure for Babylon and India) from the sixth century BC and worshipped him in his Hellenised form as Zeus Ammon. His cult was most possibly transmitted from Cyrene to Greece already from the fifth century BC. Zeus Ammon appears frequently on pre-Ptolemaic Cyrenean coins. See Chamoux (1953), 334-339. Cf. Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2012), 10.

45

Chapter 3

Demeter on Cos and Cnidus

Demeter’s cult on Cos is relevant to my discussion because of the island’s importance for the Ptolemies and because two prominent Hellenistic poems which feature Demeter are set on Cos. In the course of my discussion it will be illustrated that Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter is also associated with Cos through the mythological background of the Erysichthon myth, which is additionally linked with

Cnidus, whose cult of Demeter I discuss as well.

Cos is the place where Ptolemy II Philadelphus was born in the year 308

BC,214 an event which is presented as the highest honour for the island by Theocritus and Callimachus.215 More specifically, in Theocritus’ Encomium to Ptolemy (Id. 17), the personified Cos receives infant Ptolemy in her hands and wishes that he may honour her as much as Apollo had honoured Delos.216 Cos in Callimachus’ Hymn to

Delos is mentioned in the account of Leto’s wanderings in her search for a place to

214 Marm. Par. FGrH 239 F 19: καὶ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ υἱὸς ἐγ Κῶι ἐγένετο. Cf. Diod. Sic. 20.27.3. 215 Sherwin-White (1978), 84. 216 Theocr. Id. 17.58-67: καί σε Κόως ἀτίταλλε βρέφος νεογιλλὸν ἐόντα, δεξαμένα παρὰ ματρὸς ὅτε πρώταν ἴδες ἀῶ. ἔνθα γὰρ Εἰλείθυιαν ἐβώσατο λυσίζωνον 60 Ἀντιγόνας θυγάτηρ βεβαρημένα ὠδίνεσσιν· ἣ δέ οἱ εὐμενέοισα παρίστατο, κὰδ δ’ ἄρα πάντων νωδυνίαν κατέχευε μελῶν· ὃ δὲ πατρὶ ἐοικώς παῖς ἀγαπητὸς ἔγεντο. Κόως δ’ ὀλόλυξεν ἰδοῖσα, φᾶ δὲ καθαπτομένα βρέφεος χείρεσσι φίλῃσιν· 65 ‘ὄλβιε κοῦρε γένοιο, τίοις δέ με τόσσον ὅσον περ Δῆλον ἐτίμησεν κυανάμπυκα Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων· […] On Theocritus reworking the story of Apollo’s birth on Delos of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo in his Encomium to Ptolemy, thus making the association of the king with the god more explicit, see Hunter (2003), 143-144 with bibliography. He also notes (ibid., 149 on v. 59) that Cos receiving Ptolemy in her hands is parallel to Demeter receiving Demophoon in Hymn. Hom. Cer. 226, 331.

46 give birth to Apollo; when she approaches Cos, the god himself addresses her from the womb and warns her not to beget him there, because the island is destined to become the birthplace of another god who will belong to the lineage of the Saviours and will rule all the lands and continents of the world.217

The special importance of Cos as the birthplace of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, as reflected in the two aforementioned poems, is undoubtedly one of the factors that determined the island’s privileged position under Ptolemaic patronage.218 Cos went into an alliance with Ptolemy I Soter in 309 BC219 and remained affiliated with the

Ptolemaic kingdom for the greatest part of the Hellenistic period,220 apart from an interval of Antigonid rule at some point during Ptolemy Philadephus’ reign.221 Cos’ political and judicial autonomy throughout its alliance with the Ptolemies is

217 Callim. H. 4.160-170: ὠγυγίην δἤπειτα Κόων Μεροπηΐδα νῆσον 160 ἵετο, Χαλκιόπης ἱερὸν μυχὸν ἡρωίνης. ἀλλά ἑ παιδὸς ἔρυκεν ἔπος τόδε· ‘μὴ σύ γε, μῆτερ, τῇ με τέκοις. οὔτ’ οὖν ἐπιμέμφομαι οὐδὲ μεγαίρω νῆσον, ἐπεὶ λιπαρή τε καὶ εὔβοτος, εἴ νύ τις ἄλλη· ἀλλά οἱ ἐκ Μοιρέων τις ὀφειλόμενος θεὸς ἄλλος 165 ἐστί, Σαωτήρων ὕπατον γένος· ᾧ ὑπὸ μίτρην ἵξεται οὐκ ἀέκουσα Μακηδόνι κοιρανέεσθαι ἀμφοτέρη μεσόγεια καὶ αἳ πελάγεσσι κάθηνται μέχρις ὅπου περάτη τε καὶ ὁππόθεν ὠκέες ἵπποι Ἠέλιον φορέουσιν· ὁ δ’ εἴσεται ἤθεα πατρός. 170 Cos is one of the places that Leto visits in the Hymn Hom. Ap. 42 (Μίλητός τε Κόως τε, πόλις Μερόπων ἀνθρώπων) and Callimachus’ wording in his description of Cos (H. 4.160) seems to rework that specific line. See Hunter (2003), 6. Thus, Callimachus, like Theocritus, emphasises the connection between Ptolemy and Apollo (cf. H. 4.170) 218 See Sherwin-White (1978), 66-69, 97, who suggests that the poems composed by Theocritus and Callimachus reflect Ptolemy Philadelphus’ own sentiments towards Cos and possibly a specific benefaction he bequeathed on the island. Cf. Hunter (2003), 141. On the relationship between the two poems and the issue of the priority of one or the other, see Hunter (2003), 5-6. He concludes that it is not possible to determine which poem is the earliest; see, however, ibid, 6 n. 18. 219 Diod. Sic. 20.27.3. Cf. Sherwin-White (1978), 83, 97; the conquest of the island by Ptolemy I Soter most possibly did not meet with resistance. 220 Indicatively, Coan theoroi sent to Delos are attested from the year 282 BC and continued throughout the next decades, during which Delos was under Ptolemaic dominance. See Sherwin- White (1978), 91, with a list of the Coan theoriai. See ibid, 100, on the establishment of Arsinoe II Philadelphus’ cult on the island. 221 A naval battle near Cos in the year 261 (end of the Chremonidean war) or 255 BC between Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Antigonos Gonatas resulted in the latter’s victory and the establishment of Macedonian dominance on the island. See Athen. 209e; Plut. Mor. 545b. See Hölbl (2001), 44, 70 n. 60, on the date of the battle. It is certain that Ptolemy III Euergetes re-established the Ptolemaic patronage on Cos by 242 BC. See Sherwin-White (1978), 96, for the evidence.

47 illustrated by the fact that, contrary to other islands in the Aegean, no strong evidence of Ptolemaic rule such as taxes, laws, garrisons, etc. was found there.222

Naturally, Cos’ independent status contributed to its remarkable development as a medical and cultural centre at the time.223 Numerous physicians as well as scholars and poets from Cos immigrated to Alexandria to take advantage of the facilities at the Museum and the Library and to enjoy the privileges offered within the Ptolemaic court.224

One of those poets was Philitas,225 born on Cos in the second half of the fourth century BC.226 Philitas was possibly a well-known poet on Cos when Ptolemy

I Soter invited him to Alexandria to become the tutor of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.227

An epigram by Posidippus of Pella attests that the king honoured Philitas by commissioning the sculptor Hecataeus to make a bronze statue of him.228 Another reference to a statue of Philitas is found in Hermesianax of Colophon’s elegiac poem

222 Bagnall (1976), 103-105; Sherwin-White (1978), 93-96. 223 On the Coan school of medicine, see Fraser (1972), I 342-344; Sherwin-White (1978), 256-289. On Cos as a cultural centre, see Hardie (1997), 21-23. 224 Sherwin-White (1978), 102-108. 225 Philitas’ name is attested as Φιλίτας in the earliest sources; the other version, Φιλήτας/Φιλητᾶς, is most possibly the result of etacism at a later stage. See Müller (1990). Cf. Sbardella (2000), 3-7; Spanoudakis (2002), 19-23; Bing (2003), 330 n. 1. 226 Suda φ 332, s.v. ‘Φιλήτας, Κῷος’ (= T. 1 Sp.): υἱὸς Τηλέφου, ὢν ἐπί τε Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου, γραμματικὸς κριτικός· ὃς ἰσχνωθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ ζητεῖν τὸν καλούμενον Ψευδόμενον λόγον ἀπέθανεν. ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ διδάσκαλος τοῦ δευτέρου Πτολεμαίου. ἔγραψεν ἐπιγράμματα, καὶ ἐλεγείας καὶ ἄλλα. See also T. 7b, 11, 12b, 18a, 21, 22a, 22c Sp. For Philitas’ chronology (he was most possibly born c. 340 BC), see Fraser (1972), I 308-309; II 464 n. 19; Spanoudakis (2002), 23. 227 As it is attested in the Suda (see n. 226). On Philitas’ relationship with Ptolemy II Philadelphus, see Spanoudakis (2002), 26-28. Spanoudakis (2003), 23, suggests that Philitas’ residency in Alexandria began c. 297/296 BC. See, however, the critique by Sens (2003) for the conjectural nature of this statement. 228 Posidip. Epigr. 63 A.-B. (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309 Col. 10.16-25 = T 3 Sp.): τόνδε Φιλίται χ [αλ]κ ὸν [ἴ]σ ο ν κατὰ πάνθ’ Ἑκ [α]τ αῖος [ ἀ]κ [ρ]ι β ὴς ἄκρους [ἔπλ]α σ ε ν εἰς ὄνυχας, [καὶ με]γ έθει κα [ὶ σα]ρ κ ὶ τὸν ἀνθρωπιστὶ διώξας [ γνώμο]ν’, ἀφ’ ἡρώων δ’ οὐδὲν ἔμειξ’ ἰδέης, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀκρομέριμνον ὅλ [ηι κ]α τεμάξατο τέχνηι 5 [ πρ]έσβυν, ἀληθείης ὀρθὸν [ἔχων] κανόνα· [αὐδήσ]οντι δ’ ἔοικεν, ὅσωι πο ι κ ί λ λεται ἤθει, [ ἔμψυχ]ο ς, καίπερ χάλκεος ἐὼν ὁ γέρων· [ἐκ Πτολε]μ αίου δ’ ὧδε θεοῦ θ’ ἅμα καὶ βασιλῆος [ ἄγκειτ]α ι Μουσέων εἵνεκα Κῶιος ἀνήρ. 10

48

Leontion.229 Nevertheless, the latter does not mention Ptolemy II Philadelphus, but records instead that the statue was erected by the citizens of Cos and that it was placed under a plane tree. The two passages have attracted much scholarly attention, both with regard to the statues they refer to and the circumstances of their creation, as well as the information that may be extracted from those statues’ description in relation to Philitas’ work.230 Part of the discussion focused on the question of whether the two poets refer to the same or to two different statues, one set in

Alexandria and one on Cos, and, if the latter is the case, if the one was a replica of the other.231 The communis opinio is that it is not possible to answer with certainty any of these questions,232 but it is generally acknowledged that the two passages are testaments to Philitas’ high status as a poet, both in his homeland and in the capital of the Ptolemaic kingdom.233

Philitas composed an elegiac poem with the title Demeter, of which only scarce fragments survive.234 It has long been suggested that Philitas’ Demeter had a

Coan setting, possibly narrating the foundation of Demeter’s cult on the island.235

229 Herm. Leontion 7.75-78 CA (= T 2 Sp.): Οἶσθα δὲ καὶ τὸν ἀοιδόν, ὃν Εὐρυπύλου πολιῆται 75 Κῷοι χάλκειον στῆσαν ὑπὸ πλατάνῳ Βιττίδα μολπάζοντα θοήν, περὶ πάντα Φιλίταν ῥήματα καὶ πᾶσαν τρυόμενον λαλιήν. 230 See e.g. the discussions by Hollis (1996); Hardie (1997); (2003); Bernsdorf (2002); Bing (2003), 331-332; Sens (2005), 209-216; Tsantsanoglou (2012). It has also been attempted to identify Philitas’ statue(s) with certain types of actual statues, Roman copies of Hellenistic originals; on this, see Steward (2005), 197-203; Prioux (2008); Tsantsanoglou (2012). 231 For instance, Spanoudakis (2002), 28, argues that Posidippus is referring to a statue in Alexandria, while Hermesianax to one on Cos. Hardie (1997) suggested that the statue mentioned by Hermesianax was placed in a (plausible) Mouseion on Cos. He maintained this opinion in his later article (2003), after the edition of Posidippus’ poem, and extended his theory to suggest that if the case was that there were two different statues, they would both have been placed in Mouseia, one on Cos and one in Alexandria. 232 See e.g. Hardie (2003), passim and esp. 36; Tsantsanoglou (2012), 113. 233 On the ‘heroic honours’ of Philitas, see Dickie (1994), 379-380; Hollis (1996), 56-62; Hardie (1997), 33-35; (2003), 32-34; Spanoudakis (2002), 37-40. 234 See chapter 4 for a thorough discussion of Philitas’ fragments. 235 Kuchenmüller (1928), 53-58; Sherwin-White (1978), 16-17, 308-309; Fraser (1972), II 917 n. 290. Knox (1993), 72-73; Weber (1993), 343 n. 1; Sbardella (2000), 46-49; Spanoudakis (2002), 158-162,

49

Spanoudakis bases his reconstruction of the poem on the scholia on Theocritus’ Idyll

7, which, he notes, ‘tell us more about Demeter than any other source’.236 Theocritus’ poem is explicitly set on Cos and clearly refers to a celebration in honour of Demeter taking place there.237 More specifically, in Idyll 7 the narrator Simichidas relates a past journey he made with two friends to the Coan countryside (the deme Haleis) in order to attend the Thalysia, a harvest festival in honour of Demeter,238 to which he and his friends had been invited by Phrasidamus and Antigenes.239 The latter were, according to the narrator, the noble sons of Lycopeus who, in turn, descended from

Chalcon and Clytia.240 The scholia elaborate further on their genealogy, mentioning that Clytia was the daughter of Merops who married the Coan king Eurypylus, son of

22. Contra, Maas (1896), viii-ix; Cessi (1908), 122-137, argued that Philitas’ Demeter contained a dialogue between Demeter and Celeus at Eleusis and that it served as a model for Ovid’s presentation of Demeter’s story in Fast. 4.417-620 and Met. 5.341-571. See Spanoudakis (2002), 223-224, for a summary of the various views regarding the relationship between Ovid’s treatment and Philitas’ Demeter. Cf. Sbardella (2000), 44-45. 236 See Spanoudakis (2002), 223-241, for the reconstruction of Demeter. Cf. Sbardella (2000), 45-49. 237 See Gow (1952), II 12; Lawall (1967), 75; Segal (1974a), 70. Cf. Arnott (1979), on Brasilas’ tomb; Zanker (1980), on Burina. Contra, Krevans (1983), 203-204. Indicative of the prominence of the Coan setting in Idyll 7 is the fact that it constituted the basis for ancient and modern scholarly assumptions regarding the possibility of Theocritus’ sojourn on the island. Theocritus was born in Sicily, in Syracuse. On Theocritus’ life and the view that he lived on Cos at some point in his life, see Gow (1952), II xv-xxii, xxv-xxvii. Suda mentions that some people even considered Theocritus as a Coan (θ 166, s.v. ‘Θεόκριτος’: […] ἔστι καὶ ἕτερος Θεόκριτος, Πραξαγόρου καὶ Φιλίννης, οἱ δὲ Σιμμίχου· Συρακούσιος, οἱ δέ φασι Κῷον· μετῴκησε δὲ ἐν Συρακούσαις […]). 238 The festival mentioned is of private nature; it involves a feast and the offering of the first fruits as a sign of gratitude for the goddess’ gift of barley in abundance. See Id. 7.31-34: […] ἁ δ’ ὁδὸς ἅδε θαλυσιάς· ἦ γὰρ ἑταῖροι ἀνέρες εὐπέπλῳ Δαμάτερι δαῖτα τελεῦντι ὄλβω ἀπαρχόμενοι· μάλα γάρ σφισι πίονι μέτρῳ ἁ δαίμων εὔκριθον ἀνεπλήρωσεν ἀλωάν. On the Thalysia, see Gow (1952), II 132; Hunter (1999), 153. 239 Id. 7.1-5: Ἦς χρόνος ἁνίκ’ ἐγών τε καὶ Εὔκριτος εἰς τὸν Ἅλεντα 1 εἵρπομες ἐκ πόλιος, σὺν καὶ τρίτος ἄμμιν Ἀμύντας. τᾷ Δηοῖ γὰρ ἔτευχε θαλύσια καὶ Φρασίδαμος κἀντιγένης, δύο τέκνα Λυκωπέος, εἴ τί περ ἐσθλόν χαῶν τῶν ἐπάνωθεν ἀπὸ Κλυτίας τε καὶ αὐτῶ 5 Χάλκωνος, […] 240 Hunter (2003), 30, suggests that Theocritus was associated with the family of Lycopeus from Cos and possibly composed Idyll 7 for them.

50

Poseidon, and gave birth to Chalcon and Antagoras on Cos.241 The latter two, we learn, inhabited Cos when Heracles besieged the island and welcomed Demeter when she visited Cos in the course of her wanderings in her search for Kore.242 Thus

Phrasidamus and Antigenes were associated with Demeter through their ancestors and the cult of the goddess was possibly hereditary within their family.243

According to Spanoudakis, the scholion on Chalcon’s and Antagoras reception of Demeter is the only testament of the goddess’ passing from Cos and it most probably corresponds to the content of Philitas’ Demeter.244 The event involving Heracles might also have been mentioned in Demeter, but the main part of the poem must have dealt with Demeter’s visit to Cos and her reception as a guest by the king Chalcon which resulted in the foundation of her cult on the island and the expression of her benevolence towards the people of Cos. That is, Philitas’ Demeter featured a typical narrative providing an aetion for the local cult of the goddess, similar to that in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter and others.245 This view is further supported by the fact that Theocritus mentions in the same context the Coan spring

Burina,246 which also appears in Philitas, according to the scholia on the Theocritean passage.247 This particular verse of Philitas has long been ascribed to his Demeter,248 for reasons which will be examined more thoroughly in chapter 4. For the moment, it

241 Schol. Id. 7.5-9c-h. Cf. Hunter (1999), 153 on Id. 7.4-7. 242 Schol. Id. 7.5-9f: οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἡρακλέους πολιορκίας τὴν Κῶ κατοικήσαντες καὶ ὑποδεδεγμένοι τὴν Δήμητραν, καθ’ ὃν καιρὸν περιῄει τὴν Κόρην ζητοῦσα. 243 Cf. Gow (1952), II 133; Sherwin-White (1978), 312. 244 Spanoudakis (2002), 225. 245 Spanoudakis (2003), 225, mentions as parallels Apollod. FGrH 244 F 89 for Demeter’s cult on Paros, Paus. 2.18.3, 35.4, 7.27.9 in Argos, Paus. 1.37.2. in Attica. Cf. Richardson (1974), 178-179. 246 Id. 7.6-7: Χάλκωνος, Βούριναν ὃς ἐκ ποδὸς ἄνυε κράναν εὖ ἐνερεισάμενος πέτρᾳ γόνυ· […] 247 Schol. Id. 5-9k: Βούριναν: κρήνην λέγει τῆς Κῶ. Φιλητᾶς· ‘νάσσατο δ’ ἐν προχοῇσι μελαμπέτροιο Βυρίνης.’ (= fr. 6 Sp.). Νικάνωρ δὲ ὁ Κῷος ὑπομνηματίζων φησί· ‘Βούρινα πηγὴ ἐν τῇ νήσῳ ἐστίν, ἧς τὸ πρόσωπον βοὸς ῥινὶ παραπλήσιον.’ 248 It was first ascribed to Demeter by Knaack ap. Susemihl (1891), I 177 n. 17; his view was adopted by Sbardella (2000), esp. 169-178, and Spanoudakis (2002). Cf. Knox (1993), 73.

51 is important to establish that Philitas’ Demeter most likely dealt with the goddess’ cult on Cos and that Theocritus’ Idyll 7 is set in a similar context, presupposing

Philitas’ treatment of the topic.249

Demeter’s central role in two poems so closely associated with Cos is not coincidental, since her cult was very prominent and one of the oldest in the island.250

More specifically, the worship of Demeter and Kore is attested on Cos before the synoecism of 366 BC. Terracottas of Demeter and the head of a Kore statue dated to the end of the sixth or beginning of the fifth century BC were found in the remains of a small fountain sanctuary on the north-eastern coast of the island, thus allowing the assumption that the spring was dedicated to the two goddesses.251 Furthermore, a small temple of the fifth century BC, located in the western part of Cos on the acropolis of Astypalaea (the deme of Isthmus in Hellenistic times), was most possibly a temple of Demeter, as illustrated by the inscriptions found there.252

Another small sanctuary excavated at Kyparissi was evidently dedicated to Demeter and Kore, as it hosted seven dedicatory statues, three of Demeter, three of Kore and one of Hades, all dated from the second half of the fourth to the third century BC.253

The epigraphical evidence for the cult of Demeter after the synoecism is abundant, partly because at that time local religious festivals and regulations went

249 Spanoudakis (2002), 55-56, notes that the commentary of Nicanor of Cos mentioned in the scholia on Theocritus further supports the assumption regarding the ‘strong Coan colour’ of Philitas’ Demeter, since, in his view, most of the information on the ‘res Coae’ in the scholia on Id. 7 derive from Nicanor’s commentary on Philitas. He presupposes that Nicanor’s commentary was on Demeter, based on his own ascription of fragments, despite the lack of such explicit reference. Nevertheless, even if the commentary did not deal – exclusively – with Demeter, it is clear that it reflects Philitas’ interest on Coan traditions. The relationship between Philitas’ Demeter and Theocritus’ Idyll 7 is analysed in chapters 4 and 5. 250 Cf. Cessi (1908), 126-127; Kuchenmüller (1928), 57-58; Fraser (1972), II 916-917 n. 290; Spanoudakis (2002), 226. 251 Sherwin-White (1978), 53. 252 Sherwin-White (1978), 27 with n. 84, 305. For the inscription, see AA 16 (1901), 135. 253 Sherwin-White (1978), 28, 312. For the inscriptions, see Höghammar (1993), 56 no. 84-86.

52 under the control of a central authority and thus had to be inscribed on stone.254 A fragmentary inscription preserving a religious calendar of the late fourth century refers to sacrifices to Demeter at Alceidai,255 while the calendar for the month

Batromios mentions a temple of Demeter (Δαμάτριον) located at Eitea, a cult place for the phyle of the Pamphyloi.256

Very enlightening for the nature of the cult of Demeter on Cos are the leges sacrae, i.e. purification laws, which are preserved on inscriptions. One of them was found in the Asclepieion and dates to the early third century (c. 270-260 BC).257

According to the inscription, two elected epistatai had to ensure that copies of the purity regulations for two distinct public cults of Demeter were deposited in the temples of Demeter and Asclepius.258 The first group of restrictions is concerned with the cult of Demeter Olympia; according to them, the priestess is restricted from having contact with anything ‘impure’, e.g. the impious, a heroon or meat sacrificed for a hero, a place where a recent childbirth or miscarriage or a death took place.259

They also mention the purificatory procedures that needed to be followed on the occasion of ‘impurity’: in case of eating ‘polluted’ meat, the priestess had to sacrifice a female piglet, while in all the other cases she had to sprinkle herself with water and grain seeds from a prospermia.260 The second part of the inscription refers to the cult of Demeter Korotrophos and includes the same restrictions as for Demeter Olympia, with additional clauses regarding the purification process to be followed in the case

254 Cole (2004), 137. 255 HGK 1.59-60. 256 HGK 3.4-5. 257 HGK 8 (= LSCG 154). 258 HGK 8 I a.6-12. See Craik (1980), 205-206, on the duties of the epistatai. 259 HGK 8 II a.21-27. 260 HGK 8 II a.27-35.

53 of a death in a sanctuary, as well as sacrifices and the foundations of altars.261

According to Cole, these regulations illustrate a high level of purity that was exceptional for the priestesses of Demeter on Cos and a small number of other priesthoods, primarily at centrally located sanctuaries.262 The reason for the special standards of purity expected by those priests/priestesses was mainly their and their cults’ importance for the welfare of the community.

Moreover, an inscription from Antimacheia dated to the end of the fourth or beginning of the third century BC includes regulations regarding the priesthood of

Demeter, a formerly elective office that became ‘purchasable’, as well as the duties of the attendees and the priestess.263 More specifically, two distinct groups of women are mentioned, the τελεύμεναι and the ἐπινυμφευόμεναι and, according to the inscription, for the former group the priestess is obliged to perform the customary rites. The meaning of the terms used to describe the two groups has been disputed by the different editors of the inscription and other scholars: some considered them as referring to two categories of initiates, which would presuppose the existence of some kind of mysteries, while others though that the reference was to married women and women being betrothed.264

The only (other?) reference to mysteries of Demeter performed on Cos is found in a dedication to Demeter Soteira, Kore and Poseidon dated to the late third or early second century BC.265 There, a woman named Aischron commemorates an earthquake which occurred during the rites of Demeter (ἐν τελεταῖς Δάματρος, l. 5).

261 HGK 8 II b.36-III b.46. 262 Cole (2004), 137-144. She notes that similar purification regulations applied for the priest of Zeus Polieus on Cos. Cole also mentions as parallels Apollo’s Pythia at Delphi, the Hellanodikai at Olympia and Poseidon’s priestess at Kalaureia. 263 HGK 17 (= PH 386; LSCG 175 = ED 178). 264 Dillon (1999), 67-68 and n. 26, for a summary of views. Cf. Sherwin-White (1978), 306, who interprets it as a reference to initiates and married women. 265 BPhW 52 (1932), 1011.

54

She and other women were gathered in the sanctuary of the goddess at the time of the earthquake, when she appealed to Demeter Soteira (l. 9); eventually, Demeter and

Kore were propitiated during the nocturnal rites (νυχίαις ἱλάσατ’ ἐν τελεταῖς, l. 11) and the earth was still again. The content of the rites is not clarified, but it is very probable that Aischron’s role in the appeasement of the goddesses indicates her status as a priestess.266 Coan women’s intense participation in the cult of Demeter is further attested in an inscription of the late third or early second century BC which enumerates the donations to Demeter carried out exclusively by women.267

The prominence of Demeter’s cult on Cos, the goddess’ strong presence in

Philitas’ and Theocritus’ poetry, as well as an additional point which will be mentioned here, led some scholars to suggest that Coan elements underlie

Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter as well; this made Cos a possible place for the performance of the hymn.268 The additional element supporting this argument is the association of the Erysichthon myth narrated in the core of Callimachus’ hymn with

Cos, present in the earliest known version of the story in the Hesiodic Catalogue of

Women. There, Erysichthon appears as a man of burning hunger, which he tries to appease through the means he receives by repeatedly offering his daughter Mestra – completely absent in Callimachus’ version – as a wife to different men.269 After an account of a legal dispute between Erysichthon and Sisyphus regarding a failed marriage deal for their children,270 Mestra is carried by Poseidon to Cos where she

266 See Sherwin-White (1978), 311-312; Dillon (1999), 77. 267 ED 13-14. For more inscriptions referring to Demeter and/or Kore’s cult, see Craik (1980), 216- 217; Höghammar (1993), 56 no. 87, 47 no. 34. 268 McKay (1962b), 33-60 esp. 59-60; Fraser (1972), II 916-917 n. 290; Sherwin-White (1978), 306- 311; Bowie (1985), 80 n. 58. 269 Hes. Cat. fr. 43a.2-25. 270 Hes. Cat. fr. 43a.26-54.

55 bears him Eurypylus, the future king of Cos and father of Chalcon and Antagoras.271

The text further narrates that because of the latter king and ‘from a small beginning’

Heracles sacked Cos while he was returning from Troy.272 This is a reference to the story of Heracles’ siege of Cos which, according to one account, happened after the shepherd Antagoras refused to offer him a ram.273 It is also the story that is mentioned in the scholia on Theocritus’ Idyll 7 and the same that was possibly featured in Philitas’ Demeter. A Coan folktale entitled Myrmidonia and Pharaonia featuring a narrative similar to that in the Catalogue and, more importantly,

Callimachus’ hymn has been considered as further proof of the Coan origin of the story.274 Nevertheless, it is now generally accepted that the folktale cannot be viewed as evidence for the survival of the ancient myth, but rather as an adaptation of the story from literary sources.275 This, together with the fact that Callimachus does not include the ‘Coan’ part of the Erysichthon story in his hymn, led scholars to dismiss the argument regarding a Coan setting of Erysichthon’s story and Cos as the place of the hymn’s performance.276 In any case, as already noted, the Hymn to Demeter was probably not composed for the purpose of being performed at a certain location; this, however, does not eliminate the idea that elements associated with specific places and their mythological and religious traditions underlie the poem.

271 Hes. Cat. fr. 43a.55-60. 272 Hes. Cat. fr. 43a.61-64. 273 Plut. Quaest. Graec. 58 (= Mor. 304c-e). He narrates the story as an aetion for the priest of Heracles in Antimacheia dressing as a woman (Heracles disguised himself as woman on Cos). Cf. Rutherford (2005), 108-109. 274 Dawkins (1950), 334-340; McKay (1962b), 33-60. 275 See Fehling (1972), 185-195. Cf. Hopkinson (1984b), 26-30. 276 More elements thought to associate Callimachus’ hymn with a Coan setting (e.g. Coan laws prohibiting tree-felling, prayers for homonoia found in Cos ~ H. 6.134, the games of Itonian Athena in H. 6.74-75 as an allusion to Coan theoroi sent there) are easily dismissed, either because they are applicable to other places as well or because they are of secondary importance. See Hopkinson (1984b), 38-39 for the dismissal of these arguments.

56

A hint of such an underlying association with the mythological-historical tradition of Cos and the neighbouring area is found in the beginning of the main narrative of the story of Erysichthon in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, in the reference to the Pelasgians’ migration from the Thessalian Dotium to Cnidus, the

Carian peninsula on the southeast of Cos.277 The Thessalian colonisation of Cnidus was traditionally associated with the figure of Triopas, who in Callimachus’ hymn is the father of Erysichthon and a beloved of Demeter,278 and also the son of Poseidon and Canace, daughter of Aeolus the king of Thessaly.279 According to Diodorus

Siculus’ account, Triopas committed the crime that is ascribed to Erysichthon in

Callimachus’ hymn, i.e. the felling of Demeter’s sacred grove at Dotium, a deed which provoked the locals’ rage, and led Triopas to immigrate to Cnidus, where he founded the Triopion.280 Wilamowitz thought that the story recorded in Callimachus’ hymn derived from Cnidus and that the version featuring Triopas as the transgressor was the original,281 while Fehling argued that Diodorus Siculus most likely ‘revised’

277 H. 6.24-25: οὔπω τὰν Κνιδίαν, ἔτι Δώτιον ἱρὸν ἔναιον, †τὶν δ’ αὐτᾷ† καλὸν ἄλσος ἐποιήσαντο Πελασγοί 278 H. 6.29-30: […] θεὰ δ’ ἐπεμαίνετο χώρῳ ὅσσον Ἐλευσῖνι, Τριόπᾳ θ’ ὅσον ὁκκόσον Ἔννᾳ. The reading Τριόπᾳ has been questioned by some editors who substituted it with Τριόπῳ, assuming that the reference was meant to be to the place and not the person, thus maintaining the parallelism with the city Enna. Others thought the latter as referring to the respective nymph and not the city, thus coupling it with Triopas as the two favourites of Demeter. Hopkinson (1984), 106 on H.6.30, notes that a reference to the Triopion would be anachronistic, since it was founded after the migration to Cnidus; therefore, he keeps the parallelism between a place and a person, despite its peculiarity. 279 H. 6.97-99: τοῖα τὸν οὐκ ἀίοντα Ποτειδάωνα καλιστρέων· ‘ψευδοπάτωρ, ἴδε τόνδε τεοῦ τρίτον, εἴπερ ἐγὼ μέν σεῦ τε καὶ Αἰολίδος Κανάκας γένος, αὐτὰρ ἐμεῖο Likewise, in Apollod. Bibl. 1.53. Cf. Diod. Sic. 5.61.3. Several, diverse genealogies involving Triopas are attested. See Meyer (1916-1924); Wüst (1939); Hopkinson (1984), 30-31. 280 Diod. Sic. 5.61.2-3: ἐνταῦθα δὲ τὸ τέμενος τῆς Δήμητρος ἐκκόψαντα τῇ [μὲν] ὕλῃ καταχρῆσθαι πρὸς βασιλείων κατασκευήν· δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐγχωρίων μισηθέντα φυγεῖν ἐκ Θετταλίας, καὶ καταπλεῦσαι μετὰ τῶν συμπλευσάντων λαῶν εἰς τὴν Κνιδίαν, ἐν ᾗ κτίσαι τὸ καλούμενον ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ Τριόπιον. 281 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1924), II 33-44.

57

Callimachus’ version by making Triopas the culprit, on the basis of the traditional connection of Triopas with the Thessalian colonisation of Cnidus.282 At any rate, it is possible that there was a distinct version of the myth in which Triopas had the role of the transgressor and where the sacrilege was associated with the migration to

Cnidus.283 In Callimachus’ narrative Erysichthon’s sacrilege is not explicitly presented as the aetion for Triopas’ migration and his foundation of the Triopion, but it is certainly implied as such.284

Triopas is also associated with the pre-Dorian, Thessalian colonisation of

Cos,285 as he is said to have been a king of Cos.286 In the Iliadic Catalogue of Ships, the Coan contingent is led by the two sons of Thessalus, i.e. Heracles’ son from

Chalciope (Eurypylus’ daughter) and the eponym of the Thessalians.287 The topic of the early Thessalian settlement of Cos, the neighbouring islands and Cnidus seems to have interested scholars and poets of the third century, as, apart from Callimachus

282 Fehling (1972), 181-182. 283 Hopkinson (1984b), 26. 284 Hopkinson (1984), 99; Ambühl (2005), 195. Contra, McKay (1962b), 46, 128, where he argues that Callimachus did not present it as an aetiological story, but as a ‘Hellenist’ includes a reference to it to illustrate his awareness of it. 285 The autochthonous inhabitants of Cos were called Meropes. See Sherwin-White (1978), 47-50. Cos was believed to have been colonised by Dorians from the Argolid in the Dark Ages (see Hdt. 7.99). See Sherwin-White (1978), 29, who refers to archaeological evidence in support of this view. 286 See Schol. Id. 17.68/69b l: ἐν δὲ μιᾷ τιμῇ Τρίοπον: Τρίοψ βασιλεὺς τῆς Κῶ, ἀφ’ οὗ ἀκρωτήριον ὠνόμασται τῆς Κνίδου. Cf. Sherwin-White (1978), 192; Spanoudakis (2002), 189. 287 Hom. Il. 2.676-679: Οἳ δ’ ἄρα Νίσυρόν τ’ εἶχον Κράπαθόν τε Κάσον τε καὶ Κῶν Εὐρυπύλοιο πόλιν νήσους τε Καλύδνας, τῶν αὖ Φείδιππός τε καὶ Ἄντιφος ἡγησάσθην […] Θεσσαλοῦ υἷε δύω Ἡρακλεΐδαο ἄνακτος· On Thessalus as the son of Heracles and Chalciope see Pherec. FGrH 3 F 78; Apollod. Bibl. 2.166. Cf. Herodas’ reference to the glory of Thessalus and Heracles on Cos and Asclepius’ origin from Thessalian Trikka, 2.95-97: νῦν δείξετ’ ἠ Κῶς κὠ Μέροψ κόσον δραίνει, κὠ Θεσσαλὸς τίν’ εἶχε κἠρακλῆς δόξαν, κὠσκληπιὸς κῶς ἦλθεν ἐνθάδ’ ἐκ Τρίκκης, […] The tradition of the Thessalian colonisation of Cos is further attested by the common names (Eurypylus was also a Thessalian king) and toponyms between Thessaly and Cos. See Patton and Hicks (1891), 344-347; Sherwin-White (1978), 18 n. 36; Spanoudakis (2002), 188-189.

58 and others,288 Philitas also seems to have dealt with it in his poetry. More specifically, in one of his fragments he refers to Coan women as ‘Thessalai’.289

Spanoudakis suggested that the fragment belonged to Demeter,290 which, if true, would mean that Philitas mentioned or alluded to the Thessalian colonisation of Cos, maybe in relation to Demeter’s cult in the area. This is of particular importance as it would establish a further link between Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter and Philitas’ poem.291

It is also useful to note that Cos and Cnidus, apart from their common pre-

Dorian Thessalian ancestry, shared their Dorian tradition. More specifically, the two formed along with Halicarnassus and the Rhodian cities of Lindus, Ialysus and

Camirus the Dorian Hexapolis, i.e. a religious league whose centre was the sanctuary of Apollo on the cape Triopion.292 At a later point, Halicarnassus was expelled from the league which was thereafter called Pentapolis, whose members every four years celebrated a festival that honoured Apollo along with Poseidon and the nymphs.293

288 Sherwin-White (1978), 17-18. E.g. Zenon of Rhodes (FGrH 523 F 1 = Diod. Sic. 5.55) refers to the colonisation of Rhodes by Phorbas, the son of Lapithes. Antimachus of Colophon also appears to have dealt with the Thessalian migration from Dotium in his Lyde, see fr. 85 Matt. On Antimachus see also p. 70 n. 330 and p. 81 with n. 383. 289 Hsch. θ 405, s.v. Θεσσαλαί: αἱ Κῷαι παρὰ Φιλήτᾳ καὶ αἱ φαρμακίδες (= fr. 15 Sp.). See Fraser (1972), II 917 n. 290 (iii); Sherwin-White (1978), 309. The latter suggests that Philitas possibly portrayed Mestra as a Thessalian pharmakis (‘witch’) because of her ability to transform herself. 290 Spanoudakis (2002), 187-189. He adopts Sherwin-White’s view (see n. 289 above) on Mestra as a Thessalian pharmakis and assumes that ‘an allusion to the ‘Thessalian’ Coan women as witches due to their association with Mestra is conceivable in P[hilitas]’. He further infers – quite arbitrarily – that the fragment points to an episode in Philitas’ Demeter which involved an ill child and the Coan women’s attempts to heal it before Demeter’s intervention. Cf. Sbardella (2000), 157, who does not ascribe the fragment to a specific poem and notes that it may derive either from a poetic or a glossographical context. 291 See Spanoudakis (2002), 297-298. 292 See Hdt. 1.144: κατά περ οἱ ἐκ τῆς πενταπόλιος νῦν χώρης Δωριέες, πρότερον δὲ ἑξαπόλιος τῆς αὐτῆς ταύτης καλεομένης, φυλάσσονται αἰνῶς μηδαμοὺς ἐσδέξασθαι τῶν προσοίκων Δωριέων ἐς τὸ Τριοπικὸν ἱρόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ σφέων αὐτῶν τοὺς περὶ τὸ ἱρὸν ἀνομήσαντας ἐξεκλήισαν τῆς μετοχῆς. Ἐν γὰρ τῷ ἀγῶνι τοῦ Τριοπίου Ἀπόλλωνος ἐτίθεσαν τὸ πάλαι τρίποδας χαλκέους τοῖσι νικῶσι, καὶ τούτους χρῆν τοὺς λαμβάνοντας ἐκ τοῦ ἱροῦ μὴ ἐκφέρειν ἀλλ’ αὐτοῦ ἀνατιθέναι τῷ θεῷ. 293 Schol. Id. 17.68/69d: ἶσον Δωριέεσσι: ἡ τῶν Δωριέων πεντάπολις Λίνδος Ἰάλυσος Κάμιρος Κῶς Κνίδος. ἄγεται δὲ κοινῇ ὑπὸ τῶν Δωριέων ἀγὼν ἐν Τριοπίῳ Νύμφαις Ποσειδῶνι Ἀπόλλωνι. καλεῖται δὲ Δώριος ὁ ἀγών, ὡς Ἀριστείδης φησίν.

59

The league’s strength gradually diminished as the local sanctuaries in each of the city-members kept growing in importance.294

The close association of Cos and Cnidus from this respect is reflected in

Theocritus’ Encomium to Ptolemy: following her wish to be honoured by Ptolemy as

Delos was by Apollo, the personified Cos prays that the Triopian hill and the Dorians who live nearby may receive as much honour from Ptolemy as the island of Rhenaia received from Apollo.295 According to the scholia, this reference reflects Ptolemy II

Philadelphus’ interest in the area of Cnidus, which was expressed by his attempt to revive the Dorian festival of the Pentapolis and the games in honour of Poseidon and the Nymphs that took place at the Triopion.296 Although it is certain that Cnidus was associated with the Ptolemies, no details of this relationship are known.297 Hunter suggests that Ptolemy Philadelphus’ interest in the Dorian festival echoed in the

Encomium (note also the reference to Cnidus’ inhabitants as Dorians) corresponds to

Apollo’s patronage of the Ionian festival on Delos as it is presented in the Homeric

Hymn to Apollo (v. 147, 152).298 It is commonly acknowledged that the Ptolemies promoted their Dorian ancestry which went back to Heracles and the Temenid family

294 Sherwin-White (1978), 30. 295 Id. 17. 68-70: ἐν δὲ μιᾷ τιμῇ Τρίοπον καταθεῖο κολώναν, ἶσον Δωριέεσσι νέμων γέρας ἐγγὺς ἐοῦσιν· ἶσον καὶ Ῥήναιαν ἄναξ ἐφίλησεν Ἀπόλλων.’ Rhenaia is an island near Delos which, according to Thucydides (1.13.6; 3.104.2), was dedicated to Apollo and bound with a chain to Delos by Polygnotus of Samos. See Hunter (2003), 150 ad loc. 296 Schol. Id. 17.68/69a: <ὡς τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου> ἐσπουδακότος περὶ τὴν ἐν τῷ Τριοπίῳ τῶν Δωριέων σύνοδον καὶ τὴν αὐτόθι δρωμένην πανήγυριν καὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν ἀγόμενον Ποσειδῶνι καὶ Νύμφαις. See, however, Gow (1952), II 337 on Id. 17.68, who argues that this is most possibly an assumption based on Theocritus’ text. 297 See Bagnall (1976), 98, who accepts the Ptolemaic links with the area, but argues that there is no certain evidence of direct Ptolemaic rule. Cf. Sherwin-White (1978), 93 with n. 55, where she notes that Cnidus, like Cos, was exempted from the Ptolemaic taxation. 298 Hunter (2003), 148-149. He does not mention that Cnidus is referred to right after Cos in the catalogue of the islands in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (v. 43: καὶ Κνίδος αἰπεινὴ καὶ Κάρπαθος ἠνεμόεσσα).

60 of Argos.299 In fact, Theocritus refers to Alexander’s and Ptolemy’s I descent from

Heracles in the Encomium.300

Therefore, the Dorian associations of the Ptolemaic court and areas under its influence contributed to the presence of respective notions in contemporary poetry and the allusions to Cos and Cnidus are to be understood within this framework.

Accordingly, the ascription of the sacrilege against Demeter to Erysichthon instead of Triopas by Callimachus in his Hymn to Demeter has been considered as related to the Ptolemies’ interest in the area of Cnidus and the Triopion and their attempt to exonerate the eponym Triopas from a ‘sinful’ mythological background.301 Couat even thought that Cnidus, and more specifically a festival in honour of Cnidian

Demeter organised by Ptolemy Philadelphus (based on Theocritus’ scholia), was the place of performance of Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter.302 Although the existence of such a festival is not attested, it is certain that Demeter’s presence in Cnidus was very prominent, especially in the Hellenistic period.303

299 Hölbl (2001), 96. 300 Id. 17.20-27: ἀντία δ’ Ἡρακλῆος ἕδρα κενταυροφόνοιο 20 ἵδρυται στερεοῖο τετυγμένα ἐξ ἀδάμαντος· ἔνθα σὺν ἄλλοισιν θαλίας ἔχει Οὐρανίδῃσι, χαίρων υἱωνῶν περιώσιον υἱωνοῖσιν, ὅττι σφεων Κρονίδης μελέων ἐξείλετο γῆρας, ἀθάνατοι δὲ καλεῦνται ἑοὶ νέποδες γεγαῶτες. 25 ἄμφω γὰρ πρόγονός σφιν ὁ καρτερὸς Ἡρακλείδας, ἀμφότεροι δ’ ἀριθμεῦνται ἐς ἔσχατον Ἡρακλῆα. 301 Müller (1987), 72 n. 244. According to McKay (1962b), 36, Triopas was thought to have transplanted Demeter’s cult from Dotium to Cnidus ‘in expiation for the family misdeeds’. He notes, however, that Callimachus did not aim to present it as such. 302 Couat (1931), 234-238, argued that Callimachus composed the Hymn to Demeter on behalf of Ptolemy Philadelphus in honour of Cnidian Demeter and that Erysichthon’s story was the right choice for its narrative since it constituted the mythological source of Demeter’s cult in the area. This view has been justifiably dismissed by Hopkinson (1984), 38, as there is no such indication in the poem. 303 Here I do not discuss the issue of Cnidus’ relocation from an older urban settlement in the mainland to a new one on the coast in the fourth century BC, which, if true, might be the reason for the lack of evidence before the fourth century. See e.g. Bean and Cook (1952). Contra, Demand (1989).

61

A sanctuary of Demeter and Kore was excavated near the Cnidian acropolis, alongside numerous terracotta statuettes, vessels, lamps, inscriptions and twelve statue bases.304 On account of the findings, Newton, the excavator, concluded that the precinct was established near the middle of the fourth century BC. The earliest of the statue bases, dated to the middle or the end of the fourth century BC, bears an inscription reporting that Chrysina, the mother of Chrysogone and wife of

Hippocrates, founded a sanctuary and dedicated a statue to Demeter and Kore, reacting to a sacred dream in which Hermes informed her that she would become the servant of the goddesses.305 Newton thought that it referred to the initial foundation of the sanctuary,306 but it has since then been pointed out that a private foundation of a sanctuary for a city-cult is not very likely,307 while it is more possible that the base carried the portrait of the priestess Chrysina, rather than of one of the two goddesses.308 The other inscriptions, dating from the end of the fourth to the middle of the second century BC (the majority from the third century BC), are dedications from women (apart from one) to Demeter and Kore, while in two of them the dedicators are named as priestesses of Kore.309 The well-known marble statue of

Cnidian Demeter, carved in the second half of the fourth century BC, was found on the same location.310 The statue, now exhibited in the British Museum, portrays the

304 On the temenos of Demeter and Kore, see the reports of Newton (1863), 375-426. 305 IK 131: Κούραι καὶ Δάματρι οἶκον καὶ ἄγαλμ’ ἀνέθηκεν Χρυσογόνη[ς] μήτηρ, Ἱπποκράτους δὲ ἄλοχος, Χρυσίνα, ἐννυχίαν ὄψιν ἰδοῦσα ἱεράν· Ἑρμῆς γάρ νιν ἔφησε θεαῖς Ταθνηι προπολεύειν 306 Newton (1863), 418. 307 Bean and Cook (1952), 207. 308 Breton Connelly (2007), 134-135. 309 IK 131-146 (IK 141 for the dedication by a man; IK 132, 143 for Kore’s priestesses as dedicators). 310 Ashmole (1951), passim, argued for a date near 330 BC based on stylistic criteria.

62 goddess seated on a throne, wearing a himation and a chiton.311 Additional findings from the same sanctuary are the curse tablets, which derive, however, from a later date (late second or early first century BC).312 These record curses against persons who had committed a certain offence against the dedicator(s); the curse is articulated in the form of the perpetrators’ dedication to Demeter and a request for them to suffer until the time they arrive at the temple and confess their crime. The importance of these tablets lies in their being evidence for the sanctuary’s involvement in legal matters and thus its prominence,313 which is relevant to Demeter’s role as the bringer of justice (as Thesmophoros).314

The significance of Demeter’s cult in Cnidus is also reflected in the foundation of the ‘Triopian’ shrine of Demeter in Rome by Herodes Atticus in the first century AD, allegedly modelled on Demeter’s cult on the Triopion, the latter most likely used as a synecdoche for the whole area of Cnidus.315 Inscriptions found on two columns near the shrine report that it was dedicated to Demeter, Kore and the

‘chthonic deity’ and include warnings against vandalism.316 An additional inscription preserving Marcellus of Side’s epitaph in honour of Regilla, Herodes Atticus’ wife, reports that the Roman Triopion contained statues of Demeter and the deified

Faustina the Eldest who was identified with the goddess (v. 6 Δηώ τε νέη Δηώ τε

παλαιή), while a statue of Regilla was also placed in the shrine at some point later.317

The same poem concludes with a warning for people to respect the sacred space,

311 British Museum, GR 1859.12-26.26 (Sculpture 1300); Ashmole (1951), pl. 1-7; Ridway (1997), 332-334 pl. 79a-c. 312 IK 147-159. On the tablets, see Chaniotis (2004); Faraone (2011). 313 Chaniotis (2004), 42-43. 314 Cf. chapter 6, p. 194-197. 315 On Herodes Atticus’ Triopion, and the inscription associated with it, see Kron (1988), 15; Lucchese (2009); Gleason (2010), 142-156. Contra, Robertson (1984), 375 with n. 15, who argues that the name of the shrine derives from Triopas’ homeland in Thessaly. 316 IG XIV 1390. 317 IG XIV 1389 (161 AD) = 146 Ameling.

63 accompanied by the mythological example of Triopas’ punishment when he sacked

Demeter’s temple.318

The conclusions drawn from my discussion in this chapter are the following:

Cos, a significant island for the Ptolemies and a renowned cultural centre, housed an important cult of Demeter, which is reflected in Philitas’ poem Demeter that deals with the foundation of the cult on the island, as well as Theocritus’ Idyll 7 whose context is a Demeter festival on Cos. Furthermore, the myth treated by Callimachus in his Hymn to Demeter is associated with Cos as well as with the neighbouring area of Cnidus, another place of Ptolemaic interest with a prominent cult of Demeter.

Overall, the three poems on Demeter seem to be associated through their mythological and religious background, a notion which will be further analysed in the next chapter.

318 IG XIV 1389.93-98: ἀλλά μιν ἀπρόφατος Νέμεσις καὶ ῥόμβος ἀλάστω<ρ> τίσονται, στυγερὴν δὲ κυλινδήσει κακότητα · οὐδὲ γὰρ ἴφθιμον Τριόπεω μένος Αἰολίδαο 95 ὤναθ’, ὅτε νειὸν Δημήτερος ἐξαλάπαξεν. τῶι ἤτοι ποινὴν καὶ ἐπωνυμίην ἀλέασθα<ι> χώρου, μή τοι ἕπηται ἔπι Τρ<ι>όπειος Ἐρινύς.

64

Part II: Demeter in Poetry

In this part of my thesis, I thoroughly discuss the Hellenistic poems featuring

Demeter, aiming at drawing conclusions regarding the nature and function of the goddess as a literary persona. In the first chapter of this section I present the four poems that I consider as the most prominent for the aforementioned purpose and through the examination of the way they are interrelated I trace motifs directly or indirectly associated with Demeter. In the second chapter I discuss the poetological significance of the Demeter-related motifs and propose metapoetical interpretations of the poems; subsequently, I question and propose an explanation for the choice of

Demeter in passages of poetological significance. Finally, in the third chapter I examine the social elements of Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter and discuss in what way these reflect Demeter’s social aspect.

65

Chapter 4

A Network of Hellenistic Poems about Demeter: Callimachus, Philicus,

Philitas, Theocritus

I begin my discussion with Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, as it is the most fully extant Hellenistic text that centres on Demeter. As already noted in the Introduction, the Hymn to Demeter, alongside the Hymns to Apollo and Athena, belong to the so- called ‘mimetic’ hymns of Callimachus, where a narrative frame creates the impression of a religious ceremony taking place ‘in real time’ before the audience- readers.319 The Hymn to Demeter and the preceding Hymn to Athena differ from the

Hymn to Apollo in that their ritual frame flanks a long narrative rendering a cautionary tale related to the ritual exhortations of the frame.320 The mimetic frame in the Hymn to Demeter in particular, portrays a festival in honour of Demeter involving a procession of the ritual basket followed by female worshippers. As noted in Chapter 1, the exclusion of men from the ritual and the reference to the devotees’ fasting point to the Thesmophoria as the festival that is more similar to the one described in the poem, but no specific setting need be ascribed to it. In the succeeding paragraphs I summarily present the content of Callimachus’ hymn, as specific details of the narrative will be examined more thoroughly in the course of my discussion.

319 For the definition of the term ‘mimetic’ and the problems it involves, see Harder (1992), 395-396. On the ‘mimetic’ hymns in general, see Legrand (1901); Pretagostini (1991); Hopkinson (1984), 36; Bulloch (1985) 8; Hutchinson (1988), 63; Depew (1993); (2000); (2004); Furley and Bremmer (2001), I 46; Petrovic (2007), 124-126. 320 The relationship between H. 5 and 6 will be discussed in the next chapter.

66

The first part of the ritual frame in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter opens with instructions addressed to the female devotees of Demeter, both initiated and uninitiated, to greet the goddess and avoid looking down while the procession of the basket arrives (v. 1-5). The narrator is one of the women worshippers herself, having the role of the chorus leader or master of ceremonies.321 A reference to the women spitting from dry mouths from fasting (v. 6) is followed by the announcement of the arrival of Hesperus, who, we learn, was the only one that persuaded Demeter to break her fast during her search for her daughter (v. 7-9). The narrator then addresses

Demeter herself and expresses her amazement at the goddess’ wanderings and abstinence from drinking, eating and bathing (v. 10-12). She subsequently recounts how the goddess crossed three times the river Achelous and each ever-flowing river and how she sat three times on the ground at the well Callichorus (v. 13-16). At this point she announces a change of topic by exclaiming that she does not want to narrate what brought tears to Demeter (v. 17), but rather how the goddess provided cities with fair laws, how she taught Triptolemus the art of threshing and ploughing and how she punishes transgression (v. 18-22). The last verse of the ritual frame is corrupt (v. 23), but it most probably included a brief introduction to the succeeding cautionary tale, that is, the story that functions as an example of transgression punished by Demeter.322

The central narrative of the hymn focuses on Erysichthon, son of Triopas of

Thessaly, who decides to destroy the grove that the Pelasgians built for Demeter at

Dotium in order to create a banquet hall for his friends (v. 24-36). Accompanied by

321 On the hymns’ narrator, see Morrison (2007), 170, who opposes the idea expressed by Hopkinson (1984), 3, that the narrator’s voice is ‘nebulous and uncharacterised’, ‘above and outside the ceremony’. Cf. Bing (1995), on the female voice and perspective of the narrator (and the hymn in general). 322 See Hopkinson (1984), 99.

67 twenty servants he starts cutting down the sacred poplar of Demeter (v. 37-39), who, disguised as her public priestess Nicippe, intervenes by warning him that he will infuriate the goddess (v. 40-49). Erysichthon does not obey and the goddess, assuming her divine form, inflicts insatiable hunger and thirst upon him as a punishment (v. 50-67). The rest of the narrative deals with Erysichthon’s condition and its consequences: he cannot attend any social event but enclosed within the house consumes all the food and wine available until his entire oikos is led to ruin and he himself becomes a beggar at the crossroads (v. 68-115).

At that moment the Erysichthon narrative stops and is followed by the narrator’s wish not to have a friend or a neighbour who is hateful to Demeter (v. 116-

117), while more instructions directed to the devotees mark the return to the ritual frame: they are urged to welcome Demeter (since the basket that has arrived) and to follow the procession, the uninitiated until the prytaneion and the initiated until they reach the temple of the goddess (v. 118-133). Finally, the hymn closes with an invocation to Demeter and a request for her to maintain the city in peace and prosperity, bestow fertility on the land and cattle and be favourable to the narrator (v.

134-138).

The first point in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter which has attracted considerable attention by scholars is the narrator’s request not to ‘narrate what brought tears to Deo’ on v. 17.323 This statement has been interpreted in two ways: first, from the point of view of the internal narrator, as an expression of her compassion for Demeter,324 and, secondly, from the external narrator-poet’s

323 H. 6.17: μὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες ἃ δάκρυον ἄγαγε Δηοῖ 324 Bing (1995), 36; Morrison (2007), 173.

68 perspective, as a metapoetical statement of his distancing from previous texts.325 The

‘breaking-off’ of the narrative is a rhetorical device known from Pindar, who uses it primarily for the purpose of avoiding topics that are inappropriate according to either his encomiastic goals or his religious piety, having as ultimate goal the enhancement of his songs’ quality.326 Callimachus’ adoption of this narrative device has a similar end which, however, he reaches on a slightly different path: by rejecting or concealing other – usually traditional – treatments of certain myths, he illustrates his awareness of them and thus his erudition, while his distancing from them underlines the originality of his own composition.327 In the case of the Hymn to Demeter, the story that Callimachus refuses to narrate in favour of a different, in his view a more pleasant one, is that of Persephone’s abduction by Hades and Demeter’s subsequent sorrow and wanderings in her search.

Heyworth has suggested that Callimachus’ recusatio on v. 17 refers to three different texts, all dealing with the traditional myth of Demeter and Persephone: the

Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter and Philitas’ elegiac poem

Demeter.328 Such a threefold dismissal of texts seems attractive, since it corresponds to the triple actions of Demeter described in the preceding verses (v. 13-15), the threefold proposition of alternative topics introduced with κάλλιον (v. 18-22), as well as the general emphasis on the number three throughout the poem.329 It is necessary to note, however, that even if Callimachus intended his reader to understand the

325 On the distinction between the implied author-external narrator and the internal female narrator in the hymn, see Morrison (2007), 171-172. 326 Fuhrer (1988), 53-54. 327 Fuhrer (1988), passim and 67-68 on H. 6.17 in particular. 328 Heyworth (2004), 153. 329 On the prominence of the number three in the hymn, see Hopkinson (1984), 11 n. 2, who adds the triple anaphora in the ritual frame, the names of Τριόπας and Τριπτόλεμος, the τρίτον γένος (‘third generation’, referring to Erysichthon as the grandson of Poseidon, v. 98), τριόδοισι (‘at the crossroads’ v. 114), τρίλλιστε (‘thrice-invoked’, v. 138). Cf. also Ambühl (2005), 192-193 n. 407.

69 refusal of the Demeter and Persephone myth as a ‘dismissal’ of the three aforementioned texts – the first as the canonical text of Demeter’s myth, the other two as nearly contemporary poems dealing with similar topics –, this does not exclude the possibility of him alluding to additional texts, not only in v. 17, but also throughout the hymn.330 In the course of my analysis in this and the following two chapters it will be illustrated that Callimachus in his Hymn to Demeter uses a variety of intertexts for emulation as well as contrast. Nevertheless, I will first examine the way Callimachus’ hymn relates to the three suggested literary (anti)models.

The relationship between Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter and the Homeric

Hymn to Demeter has been extensively examined by scholars, the prevailing view being that the archaic text constitutes an important point of reference for

Callimachus, functioning both as a positive and negative foil.331 The popularity of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter in the Hellenistic period is well attested by the various treatments of its myth and by the numerous direct or indirect allusions to it in

330 More texts have been proposed as Callimachus’ anti-models. One is Antimachus’ alleged treatment of the Demeter and Persephone myth in his Lyde: fr. 78 Matth. referring to Demeter’s priests on Paros and fr. 79 Matth. mentioning Eleusinian Demeter’s voice (or sight), see Matthews (1996), 229-234 ad loc. Cf. fr. 85 Matth. (φεύγοντας γαίης ἔκτοθι Δωτιάδος) from the second book of Lyde, where Antimachus possibly refers to the Thessalians’ migration to Cnidus mentioned by Callimachus in H. 6.24; see McKay (1962), 105 n. 1; Hopkinson (1984), 100 ad loc. Matthews (1996), 242-245, agrees with McKay that Antimachus may have presented Erysichthon’s story in the form of a tragedy; see, however, the critique by Harder (1998), 636. Cf. also Faulkner (2012), 79-81, who argues that Callimachus choice of the Erysichthon story (as that of Cydippe) was part of his literary polemic against Antimachus’ Lyde. It has also been suggested that Callimachus refers to his own treatment of the myth, included in the Aetia or another work; see Malten (1910), 543-553; Wilamowitz- Moellendorff (1924), II 34; Kuchenmüller (1928), 55-56; Herter (1975), 480-481. Fr. 611 Pf., a fragment incertae sedis, has been considered as evidence for this; here Callimachus addresses Demeter thus: Καλλιχόρῳ ἐπὶ φρητὶ καθέζεο παιδὸς ἄπυστος (‘you sat at the well Callichoros, having no news about your child’). Hopkinson (1984), 93-94, ascribes the fragment to the Aetia, while Hollis (1990), 329 on fr. 172-173 (his numbering) includes it in the Hecale. Another instance where Callimachus treats Demeter-related material is the aetion concerned with the exclusion of unmarried women from the Attic Thesmophoria (fr. 63 Pf.), most possibly included in the third book of the Aetia; on the poem, see Pfeiffer (1949), I 65-66; Hollis (1992), 13-15. 331 See mainly the treatments by Hunter (1992), 9-11; Haslam (1993), 119 n. 4; Bing (1995); Van Tress (2004), 169-170; Ambühl (2005), 177-190. Contra, Fantuzzi (1993), argues that Callimachus’ H. 5 and 6 are not much influenced by the Homeric hymns, but rather by archaic choral lyric. Bulloch (1977), 98-101, argues that the narrative of Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter has more similarities with the Homeric Hymn to Dionysus instead.

70 different works.332 With regard to Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, it has been argued that in v. 7-17 the poet ‘re-writes’ in miniature form the Homeric hymn,333 since apart from the allusion to its myth, he also adopts specific elements from the

Homeric narrative. One of these elements is the double reference to Demeter’s refusal to eat, drink or wash during her daughter’s absence, which is similar to the double appearance of the same theme in the Homeric hymn.334 Callimachus, however, differentiates his own account of Demeter’s abstinence by varying the wording and by reversing the sequence eating-drinking to drinking-eating.335

Additional elements of the story are altered in Callimachus’ version, such as the agent responsible for breaking Demeter’s fast (Hesperus in H. 6.9, Iambe in Hymn.

Hom. Cer. 202-205), the well near which Demeter is seated (Callichorus in H. 6.15,

Partheneion in Hymn. Hom. Cer. 98-99),336 and the number of times the goddess

332 See Richardson (1974), 68-71. He notes the Homeric hymn’s influence on Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica (especially the episode of Thetis trying to immortalise Achilles in 4.869-873, modelled on the Demophon episode in Hymn. Hom. Cer. 237-240), Theocritus’ Idyll 25, Nicander’s Alexipharmaca (128-132), fr. 935 PMG (Epidaurian Hymn to the Mother of the Gods), SH 990 (anonymous Hymn to Demeter). On the Homeric Hymns’ collection in the Hellenistic period (especially with regard to its influence on Callimachus), see Faulkner (2011), 178-196. 333 Hunter (1992), 10. 334 Hymn. Hom. Cer. 49-50, 200 ~ H. 6.12, 16. 335 Hymn. Hom. Cer. 49-50: οὐδέ ποτ’ ἀμβροσίης καὶ νέκταρος ἡδυπότοιο πάσσατ’ ἀκηχεμένη and Hymn. Hom. Cer. 200: ἀλλ’ ἀγέλαστος ἄπαστος ἐδητύος ἠδὲ ποτῆτος ~ H. 6.12: οὐ πίες οὔτ’ ἄρ’ ἔδες τῆνον χρόνον; 6.16 αὐσταλέα ἄποτός τε καὶ οὐ φάγες Hymn. Hom. Cer. 50: οὐδὲ χρόα βάλλετο λουτροῖς ~ H. 6.12: οὐδὲ λοέσσα Also, Hymn. Hom. Cer. 200: ἀλλ’ ἀγέλαστος ἄπαστος ἐδητύος ἠδὲ ποτῆτος (for Demeter) ~ H. 6.6: μηδ’ ὅκ’ ἀφ’ αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι (for Demeter’s devotees). See Bing (1995), 30-31; overall, Bing argues that the Homeric Hymn to Demeter functions as a ‘counterpoint’ for Callimachus’ hymn, i.e. that he uses it as a model in order to distance his own poem from it. His view has been adopted by Spanoudakis (2002), 295 n. 135. 336 The well Callichoros is also mentioned in Hymn. Hom. Cer. 272 as the location where Demeter’s temple had to be built at Eleusis. See Richardson (1974), 326-328; Hopkinson (1984), 93-94; Bing (1995), 31 n. 8. Cf. the reference to the same spring in Callim. fr. 611 Pf. mentioned above, p. 70 n. 330

71 repeats each of her actions (everything three times in Callimachus, once in the

Homeric hymn).337

Apart from the evident resonances of the Homeric hymn in the brief reference to the myth of Demeter and Persephone in the frame of Callimachus’ hymn, it has also been argued that the same story is recalled in the Erysichthon narrative.338 The intentional juxtaposition with the archaic text is suggested from the beginning of the narrative, in the statement that Demeter loved the grove the Pelasgians made for her as much as she loved Eleusis and that she loved Triopas as much she loved Enna (H.

6.29-30);339 this implies thus that the current story (and the hymn?) is or will be of as much importance for Demeter as the Homeric hymn.340 Moreover, in the centre of the story, the violation of Demeter’s favourite tree may be seen as a parallel to the rape of Persephone,341 while Demeter herself identified with her tree may be seen as parallel to Persephone, especially when taking into account the resemblances between the wording used to describe Demeter’s poplar in Callimachus’ hymn and the description of her epiphany in the Homeric hymn.342 Furthermore, Erysichthon may be viewed as a counterpart of Demophon in that they are both young males and victims of Demeter’s rage, although in the latter’s case the sacrilege is committed not by himself but by his mother; Callimachus again reverses the story by portraying

337 Cf. Henrichs (1993), 139-140, who argues that the triple repetition of Demeter’s actions in Callimachus’ hymn indicates the greater amount of effort she has to put in order to ‘find an outlet for her emotions’. 338 See especially Ambühl (2005), 180-191. 339 Hunter (1992), 11 n. 4 interprets the reference to Enna as an indication that Callimachus considered Sicily as the place of Persephone’s abduction, which may be viewed within the framework of his ‘antagonistic’ stance towards the Homeric hymn. The version having Sicily as the place of Persephone’s abduction is first mentioned by Carcinus (TGrF 70 F 5) and later became the dominant one; see Richardson (1974), 76-77. 340 See Hunter (1992), 10-11; Ambühl (2005), 180-181. 341 See Hunter (1992), 10; Bing (1995), 31-32; Faulkner (2012), 77. 342 H. 6.37: μέγα δένδρεον αἰθέρι κῦρον ~ Hymn. Hom. Cer. 188-189: ἡ δ’ ἄρ’ ἐπ’ οὐδὸν ἔβη ποσὶ καί ῥα μελάθρου | κῦρε κάρη. See Richardson (1974), 208 ad loc.; Hopkinson (1984), 131 ad loc. Cf. Bing (1995), 31; Faulkner (2012), 77 n. 9.

72

Erysichthon’s mother as a victim.343 Finally, in both stories Demeter’s anger leads to her causing famine (λιμός), which in the Homeric hymn affects all mankind in its entirety, while in Callimachus’ only the transgressor’s family.344

At this point I turn my attention to the second text proposed as an ‘anti- model’ for Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, that is, Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter.345

Philicus of Corcyra lived in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and was a tragedian, member of the so-called Pleiad, and a priest of Dionysus, head of the guild of the τεχνῖται.346 His Hymn to Demeter is the only piece of his oeuvre that survives,347 albeit in fragmentary form.348 The feature of the poem which primarily attracted the interest of ancient scholars was its unusual metre, that is, catalectic choriambic hexameters, which was named after him by later metricians.349

This innovation in terms of metre was most probably what led Philicus to call his

343 For the verbal parallels between the stories in the two poems, see Faulkner (2012), 77 n. 11. Cf. Bing (1995), 32; Ambühl (2005), 187-191, who articulates an interesting proposal: in terms of narrative, Demeter’s treatment of Erysichthon as a child at the beginning and the intensity of her punishment later might indicate her thinking about Demophon and the different circumstances of his ‘crime’ and punishment. 344 H. 6.66 ~ Hymn. Hom. Cer. 311. Cf. Bing (1995), 32. 345 = SH 676-679. Other scholars, apart from Heyworth (see above), who saw an allusion to Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter in Callim. H. 6.17 are: Hunter (1992), 10 n. 2; Ambühl (2005), 193; Faulkner (2012), 79. 346 Suda φ 358, s.v. ‘Φιλίσκος’: Κερκυραῖος, Φιλώτου υἱός, τραγικὸς καὶ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διονύσου ἐπὶ τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου Πτολεμαίου γεγονώς. καὶ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ τὸ Φιλίσκιον μέτρον προσηγορεύθη, ἐπείπερ αὐτῷ ἐνεδαψιλεύετο. ἔστι δὲ τῆς δευτέρας τάξεως τῶν τραγικῶν, οἵτινές εἰσιν ζ΄ καὶ ἐκλήθησαν Πλείας. αἱ δὲ τραγῳδίαι αὐτοῦ εἰσι μβ΄. The Suda and some other ancient sources refer to Philicus using the name Φιλίσκος, possibly confusing him with the comic poet Philiskos from Aegina. The form Φίλικος is attested in Hephaestion, Ench. 9.4 (= p. 30, 21-13 Consbr.) and in an epigram on his death (SH 980). On Philicus’ name, see Gallavotti (1931), 59; Stoessle (1938), 2379-2380; cf. Norsa (1927), 87, who proves that the only form of the name which fits the choriambic metre of the second verse of his Hymn to Demeter is Φίλικος. 347 Suda (see n. 346) mentions that he composed forty-two dramas. 348 Sixty-two lines are preserved on a papyrus dated to the end of the third century BC. Despite being nearly contemporary with Philicus, the papyrus contains several mistakes and variants of the text; see Gallavotti (1931), 39. 349 On the hymn’s metre, see Powell (1929), 61-62; Gallavotti (1931), 57; Latte (1954), 1-2; West (1987), 11. Ancient and modern scholars argue that Philicus’ innovation was not that he was the first to use the metre (since Simias used it before him), but in that he used it κατὰ στίχον, ‘stichically’. Caesius Bassus (p. 263.5 Keil) refers to ‘laudibus Cereris et Liberae’, but this does not mean that Philicus wrote more than one hymns to Demeter and Persephone, as Gallavotti (1931), 42 n. 1, initially thought. On this issue, see Morelli (1994), 287-288.

73 own poem a καινόγραφος σύνθεσις, i.e. a ‘newly-styled composition’, as a verse quoted by the metrician Hephaestion attests (SH 677):

καινογράφου συνθέσεως τῆς Φιλίκου, γραμματικοί, δῶρα φέρω πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

‘the gifts of the newly-styled composition of Philicus, I bring you, scholars’

Philicus’ address to the ‘grammarians’ and his declaration that he offers his poem to them as a gift are indications that the hymn was most possibly not intended to be performed, but rather to be read by a small, learned audience.350 The other verse quoted by Hephaestion contains an invocation to the divinities to whom the hymn is dedicated (SH 676):

τῇ χθονίῃ μυστικὰ Δήμητρί τε καὶ Φερσεφόνῃ καὶ Κλυμένῳ τὰ δῶρα

‘to Demeter Chthonia, Persephone and Clymenus, mystic gifts’

It is generally thought that this is the opening line of the poem, while the verse addressed to the grammarians has been taken to be either the second or closing line of the hymn.351 In my view, the two lines are not consecutive because of the repetition of the δῶρα, while the line referring to the grammarians appears to fit more the ending of the poem. The invocation to Demeter Chthonia, Persephone and

350 Gallavotti (1931), 56-57; Körte (1931), 443; Fraser (1972), I 651-652. Contra, Furley (2009), 498- 499, suggests that Philicus’ hymn might have been performed at a panegyris held at Alexandrian Eleusis. He bases his assumption on his own proposal regarding the poem’s association with the Ptolemaic queens; see below regarding this proposal. Giuseppetti (2012), 119, questions the validity of the established scholarly view regarding the non-performance of the hymn, but does not offer a specific answer. Parallel to Philicus’ presentation of his poem as a gift, is that of Boiskos of Cyzicus (SH 233), who ‘donated’ his catalectic iambic octameters to Phoebus: Βοΐσκος ἁπὸ Κυζικοῦ, καινοῦ γραφεὺς ποιήματος, τὸν ὀκτάπουν εὑρὼν στίχον, Φοίβῳ τίθησι δῶρον. Cf. Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 37-38. 351 See Lloyd-Jones and Parsons (SH), 321, who print them as first and second, but also note that Hephaestion’s usual practice was to cite the first and last line of a poem. Giuseppetti (2012), 117-118, argues that this sequence is more likely as it creates ring composition which implies that the hymn is a gift offered to both the deities of the beginning and the grammarians of the ending. Contra, Körte (1931), 443, argued for the sequence SH 677 preceding SH 676, both forming the opening of the hymn, because, in his view, the line referring to Demeter, Persephone and Clymenus explains the term δῶρα mentioned in the other verse. His argument was adopted by Latte (1954), 11.

74

Clymenus recalls the first line of the Hymn to Demeter by Lasus of Hermione,352 a poem that celebrated Demeter Chthonia of Hermione and was famous for being asigmatic (i.e. completely avoiding the sound ‘s’).353 Demeter’s cult in Hermione focused on the chthonic aspect of the goddess through her association with the underworld, as her pairing with Persephone and Hades-Clymenus indicates.354 The most remarkable feature of this cult was a custom performed during an annual festival held in Hermione in the summer, according to which four untamed heifers were led into the sanctuary of the goddess and were slaughtered with sickles by four old priestesses.355 The performance of the sacrifice by women in an enclosed space and with sickles is without parallel in Greek ritual and for that reason was well- known in Greece.356 Philicus may be alluding to this Demeter cult in his Hymn to

Demeter, but the way and the reason he does so are not possible to be determined based on the scarce remains of the poem.357

The content of Philicus’ hymn, from what may be inferred from its fragmentary verses, is summarized as follows: a reference to Persephone’s abduction is succeeded by Demeter’s torchlight wandering in search for her (SH 680.1-17), while some verses later it is mentioned that the rain has destroyed the crops and the heat has led to a drought – presumably both consequences of Demeter’s grief (SH

352 Fr. 702 PMG: Δάματρα μέλπω Κόραν τε Κλυμένοι’ ἄλοχον. 353 Athenaeus (10.455c-d) quotes the first three lines of the hymn because of this special feature; on this, see Porter (2007). On Lasus’ hymn and Demeter’s cult in Hermione, see Prauscello (2011), 20 with n. 5 for bibliography. 354 On the chthonic aspect of Demeter in Hermione, see Iles Johnston (2012), esp. 214-215. For bibliography on Demeter’s cult in Hermione, see Prauscello (2011), 19 n. 2. On Clymenus identified with Hades, see Suda κ 1843, s.v. ‘Κλύμενος’: οὕτω λέγεται ὁ Ἅδης∙ ἢ ὅτι πάντας προσκαλεῖται εἰς ἑαυτόν, ἢ ὁ ὑπὸ πάντων ἀκουόμενος. 355 Paus. 2.35.4-8; Ael. NA 11.4. See Farnell (1907), III 48-49; Iles Johnston (2012). 356 Iles Johnston (2012), 216-217. 357 Giuseppetti (2012), 118, suggests that Philicus’ hymn might have had a political function similar to that of Lasus’ hymn, which promoted the connection between the Athenian-Eleusinian and Hermionian cult of Demeter.

75

680.20-21). At this point a female character whose name is not preserved addresses

Demeter and, after reminding her of their familial bonds (SH 680.24-28),358 tries to console her with the promise of great honours, that is, the founding of the Eleusinian mysteries. She then enumerates aspects of the mysteries: the procession of the mystai to Eleusis with shouts of Iacchus, a procession of fasting mystai along the coast, the dedication of anointed branches, two sacred springs and an additional spring formed from her tears which will be called the ‘royal spring’ (SH 680.29-47).359 Her speech concludes with an exhortation to Demeter to lead Persephone ‘under the stars’, raise the torches and overcome her pain (SH 680.47-50). Subsequently, the Nymphs and the Graces together with a crowd of mortal women perform obeisance to Demeter and honour her with a phyllobolia (‘showering of leaves’) (SH 680.51-53).360

Thereupon, the character of Iambe, an old woman coming from Halimus, enters the scene and warns the women not to throw herbs on the goddess, since ambrosia is the only proper food for her; she then turns to Demeter herself and announces that she cannot offer gifts like those of the goddesses and the other women,361 but promises to

358 The identity of the speaker has been greatly disputed. Scholars have suggested different deities on the basis of various arguments. Gallavotti (1931), 51, in his first edition of the papyrus suggested Zeus (despite the fact that the speaker appears to be female), while in the second (1951), 148, he joined Körte (1931), 450-454, in considering Peitho as the speaker. Latte (1954), 12-14, suggested Tethys; Page (1942), 405, Dione; Lloyd-Jones and Parsons (SH), 325, Rhea; Furley (2009), 490-494, Aphrodite. 359 Cf. the spring Cleite in Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.1062-1069 and the spring Byblis in Parthen. Amat. Narr. 11.4.8-9. 360 The phyllobolia was a common practice for honouring the victors in Panhellenic games and supposedly derived from the throwing of leaves to Theseus on his return from Crete after his fight with the Minotaur. See Suda π 1054, s.v. ‘περιαγειρόμενοι’; Eratosth. FGrH 241 F 14. Körte (1931), 448-449, argued that Philicus’ passage alludes to a scene from Callimachus’ Hecale where the phyllobolia in honour of Theseus after his fight with the Marathonian bull is depicted (fr. 260.11-15 Pf.). 361 Note the parallelism between the gifts of the goddesses to Demeter and the poem as a gift to Demeter, Persephone and Clymenus, as well as to the grammarians.

76 take her sorrow away (SH 680.54-62). The moment she is about to ‘loosen’ or

‘release’ (λύσω) something, the papyrus breaks off.362

Overall, despite its fragmentary form, it is possible to deduce that the main reason Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter has been considered as one of the texts from which Callimachus intended to distance his own hymn is the fact that it treats aspects of the myth Callimachus refused to narrate. However, as is the case with the Homeric

Hymn to Demeter, it may be argued that Callimachus’ and Philicus’ hymns, despite narrating different myths, have some elements and ideas in common. Certainly, this need not be ascribed to direct influence between the two poems, although this possibility must not be excluded.363 The most evident similarity between the two hymns is the conflation of the serious and the playful,364 a feature which was already present in the Homeric hymn, there centred on the figure of Iambe in her role in entertaining Demeter.365 Iambe has the same role in Philicus’ hymn, where, however, her character occupies a much larger part of the narrative; this is a certain assertion, regardless of the fact that her speech is not preserved in its entirety. Her appearance in Philicus’ hymn is said to happen ‘on time’ (καιρίαν, SH 680.54) and by a ‘stroke of good fortune’ (ἔκ τινος ἔστειλε τύχης), since ‘a joking word can bring rewards in serious affairs’ (σεμνοῖς ὁ γελοῖος λόγος ἆρα κέρδη, SH 680.55).366 Her introduction

362 See Furley (2009), 484 n. 2, on the object of the verb λύσω. He notes the two alternatives proposed by other scholars: either ‘grief’ or ‘her girdle’, the latter making sense only if Iambe is presented as a parallel to Baubo who, according to tradition, distracted Demeter by showing her her genitals. On Baubo, see Clem. Alex. Protr. 20.3-21.1. Cf. Richardson (1974), 215-216. 363 It is noteworthy that Callimachus appears to allude to the cult of Demeter Chthonia of Hermione in Hec. fr. 285 Pf.: Δηώ τε Κλυμένου τε πολυξείνοιο δάμαρτα. Cf. also Hec. fr. 278 Pf., where he refers to the Hermionian custom of not putting a coin in the mouth of the dead because the Hermionians were exempted from the fare paid to Charon to transport them across the river Acheloos as a reward for offering Demeter information regarding Persephone’s abduction; on the custom, see Strabo 8.6.12. 364 Cf. Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2012), 137. 365 Hymn. Hom. Cer. 200-205. On Iambe in the Homeric hymn, see Richardson (1974), 213-215; Foley (1994), 45-46. 366 Ηere Ι adopt Furley’s (2009) text and translation. He does not follow Lloyd-Jones and Parsons (SH) in printing ἆρ’ ἀκερδῆς; see ibid, 504 on v. 55, for the justification of his choice.

77 right after the unidentified goddess’ speech which aimed to convince Demeter to cease her mourning and the famine she caused may be an indication that the speech was unsuccessful and that Iambe with her γελοῖος λόγος was the one who managed to appease Demeter.367 Furley proposes a metapoetic interpretation of SH 680.55, according to which the γελοῖος λόγος alludes to the playful tone of Philicus’ poem itself as opposed to the solemn topic of Demeter’s grief (signified by σεμνοῖς) with which it deals.368 This phrase and idea are reminiscent of Callimachus’ decision not to narrate what brought tears to Demeter and to recount Erysichthon’s story instead, which is κάλλιον also in the sense of being entertaining. The ‘comic’ elements of

Erysichthon’s narrative have long been recognised; these are traced mainly in

Erysichthon’s insatiable hunger, i.e. a stock theme of comedy, and the family drama it causes. The ‘comic’ character of the Erysichthon tale will be further analysed in chapter 6. At any rate, the point in the narrative where Erysichthon’s tale (i.e.

Callimachus’ γελοῖος λόγος) is inserted, that is, the moment the women (and

Demeter) are about to break their fast, corresponds to the moment Iambe’s jesting intervenes in the Homeric and Philicus’ hymns.369 This is explained by the fact that the γελοῖος λόγος has a parallel in Demeter’s rituals, where aeschrologia (‘ritual obscenity’) took place before the devotees’ breaking of their fast and for which

Iambe’s joking has been held to be the mythological aetion.370

367 If that is the case, it marks an important difference compared to the Homeric hymn, where Iambe’s jesting resulted only in Demeter breaking her fast and mourning. She inflicted the famine after she left Celeus’ palace, following the foundation of her cult at Eleusis. See Giuseppetti (2012), 123. 368 Furley (2009), 494. 369 Iambe as the one who persuaded Demeter to break her fast is replaced by Hesperus in Callimachus’ hymn. This does not contradict the view that Erysichthon’s story corresponds to Iambe’s jesting, as the reference to Hesperus does not fulfil this part of the myth and ritual. Cf. McKay (1962a), 123-124, argues that Erysichthon’s narrative takes up the role of Iambe’s joking. 370 It has been proposed that Iambe’s jesting is the aetion for the aeschrologia practised within the framework of either the Eleusinian mysteries or the Thesmophoria. For bibliography for both views, see Halliwell (2008), 161-162 with n. 16, 17. The information that Iambe came from Halimous in

78

The emphasis on fasting and food, both closely associated with the notion of

γελοῖον, is a feature present in both hymns (as well as in the Homeric hymn).

Demeter’s abstinence from food and drink is not mentioned in the surviving verses of

Philicus’ poem, but it must have been part of its narrative, as in the preserved lines there is a reference to her fasting initiate, ‘the one fasting along the wave’ (τὸμ παρὰ

κῦμα νήστην, SH 680.37),371 while the preserved part of Iambe’s speech refers to the appropriate kind of food for Demeter. More specifically, Iambe mocks the women’s throwing of leaves, the only plant of the barren earth that was left (φυλλοβολῆσαι

δ[ὲ] θεὰν [χερσ]ὶ[ν ἀ]νέσχον τὰ μόνα ζώφυτα γῆς ἀκάρπου, SH 680.53),372 by calling the leaves ‘goat’s fodder’ (χόρτον αἰγῶν, SH 680.56), not the proper remedy for the hungry goddess, since only ambrosia is suitable food for her delicate stomach (οὐ

τόδε πεινῶντι θεῶι [φάρμ]ακον, ἀλλ’ ἀμβροσία γαστρὸς ἔρεισμα λεπτῆς, SH

680.57).373 She then again ridicules the women’s showering of leaves by calling their offering of grass ‘food of the timid deer’ (ὀκνηρᾶς ἐλάφου δίαιτα, SH 680.61). Thus,

Iambe, it seems, misinterprets the women’s act of phyllobolia as an offering of unsuitable food to the hungry goddess. I would suggest that it is precisely in this, presumably intentional, ‘misunderstanding’ and unjust mocking of Iambe that the humorous effect of her speech may lie, that is, the one that led Demeter first to laugh and then break her fast.374 If this is the case, Philicus is here ‘supplementing’ what

Philicus’ hymn (SH 680.54) has been explained as a reference to the Demeter festival that took place in the same deme just before the beginning of the Athenian Thesmophoria; this would establish thus an unprecedented aetiological association between the Thesmophoria and the Eleusinian mysteries; on this, see Lloyd-Jones and Parsons (SH), 327 ad loc. Cf. Giuseppetti (2012), 123. 371 This may point to the procession of the initiates along the coast to Eleusis in the second day of the mysteries, the 16th Boedromion; see IG II2 847.20; Hsch. α 2728, s.v. ἅλαδε μύσται: ἡμέρα τις τῶν Ἀθήνησι μυστηρίων. See Latte (1954), 15-16; Furley (2009), 493. Robertson (1998), 558 with n. 33 suggests a different procession taking place on the 19th Boedromion. Cf. Giuseppetti (2012), 121. 372 The supplements are by Furley (2009) and Gallavotti (1931) respectively. 373 Supplemented by Norsa (1927). 374 Note, however, that we do not know what Iambe promises to do in the end of the papyrus.

79 was absent from the narrative of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, where the exact nature of Iambe’s jesting that resulted in Demeter’s laughter and her drinking of the cyceon is never revealed.375 Furthermore, Iambe’s mocking speech in Philicus’ hymn is compatible with the traditional view that she is the eponym of iambic poetry and that her jesting is the aetion for the ritual aeschrologia at Demeter’s festivals,376 where fasting and eating were also crucial. The sequence of fasting followed by joking or mocking that involves the theme of food (or the proper kind thereof), which leads to laughter, which leads to eating, appears as an apt scheme for the occasion.377

The same pattern – albeit in a distorted manner – may be applied also to

Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, where the fasting in the first part of the ritual frame is followed by the ‘more pleasant’ story of Erysichthon that involves food and eating in the centre, which is succeeded by the rejoicing and implied eating of the worshippers in the second part of the frame. So although Philicus’ and Callimachus’ hymns deal with two different Demeter myths, their structure and the themes they discuss are not as dissimilar as they appear at first sight.

The third text that has been proposed as Callimachus’ ‘rejected’ model,

Philitas’ elegiac poem Demeter, in spite of being even more fragmentary than

375 Hymn. Hom. Cer. 202-204: πρίν γ’ ὅτε δὴ χλεύῃς μιν Ἰάμβη κέδν’ εἰδυῖα πολλὰ παρασκώπτουσ’ ἐτρέψατο πότνιαν ἁγνὴν μειδῆσαι γελάσαι τε καὶ ἵλαον σχεῖν θυμόν· A prevalent view is that Iambe’s jesting consisted of mockery of sexual character; on this, see Arthur (1977), 21-22; Clay (1989), 234-235; O’Higgins (2003), 43-45. For more bibliography on this topic, see Halliwell (2008), 163 n. 20. Demeter drinking the cyceon in Hymn. Hom. Cer. 210-211: ἡ δὲ κυκεῶ τεύξασα θεᾷ πόρεν ὡς ἐκέλευε· δεξαμένη δ’ ὁσίης ἕνεκεν πολυπότνια Δηὼ 376 On Iambe as the eponym of iambus, see e.g. Richardson (1974), 213-217; Rosen (1988b), 4; (2007), 47-57; Halliwell (2008), 163; Rotstein (2010), 180-182. On Iambe and aeschrologia, see e.g. Allen, Halliday and Sikes (1936), 151; Richardson (1974), 222; Foley (1994), 46; Rotstein (2010), 170-173. 377 Cf. Halliwell (2008), 164, on laughter as a life-promoting force in Demeter’s story: ‘before Iambe acts, Demeter’s agelastic state is placed on a par with her refusal of food and drink (200), as though laughter itself is an indispensable need of life’.

80

Philicus’ hymn, has been considered as a greatly influential work, not only for

Callimachus, but for Hellenistic poetry in general.378 The majority of these opinions has been based on a reference to Demeter (ὄμπνια Θεσμοφόρος) in the programmatic prologue of Callimachus’ Aetia (fr. 1.9-12 Harder = fr. 1 Pf.):379

..….].. ρεην [ὀλ]ιγόστιχος ἀλλὰ καθέλ⌞κει

....] πολὺ τὴν μακρὴν ὄμπνια Θεσμοφόρο[ς· 10

τοῖν δὲ] δυοῖν Μίμνερμος ὅτι γλυκὺς, α⌞ἱ γ’ ἁπαλαὶ [

…..] ἡ μεγάλη δ’ οὐκ ἐδίδαξε γυνή.380

Callimachus here claims that ὄμπνια Θεσμοφόρος ‘nourishing Lawgiver’ of the few lines outweighs the long poem and that of the two (poems) the delicate one taught that Mimnermus is sweet, while the large woman did not. This passage has attracted a great amount of scholarly attention and its meaning has been the subject of intense debates.381 More specifically, it has been interpreted in two ways: either as a praise of Philitas’ and Mimnermus’ shorter poems compared to their longer ones,382 or as a praise of both poets as an exemplary elegiac poetic pair, in contrast to a third poet, possibly Antimachus.383 The first interpretation is based on the Florentine scholia,

378 E.g. Heyworth (2004), 149, calls it ‘a famous poem’; Hunter (2006b), 16 ‘a very influential elegiac poem’; Spanoudakis (2002), 241-243, enumerates the features ‘that made Demeter so special to the great Alexandrian poets’. 379 On the identification of ὄμπνια Θεσμοφόρος with Philitas’ Demeter, see Müller (1987), 40, 91; Massimila (1996), 206-212; Asper (1997), 155 with n. 101; Spanoudakis (2002), 42-46, 142-144; Harder (2012), II 40-41. 380 Here I print Harder’s (2012) text and supplements. 381 For bibliography on this passage, see Massimilla (1996), 206-212; Sbardella (2000), 28-30; Harder (2012), II 32-36. 382 See e.g. Gallavotti (1932), 233-234; Coppola (1935), 138-142; Morelli (1949), 2; Wimmel (1958), 352; Hollis (1978); Töchterle (1980); Pretagostini (1984), 121-136; Allen (1993), 146-156; Cameron (1995), 308-309; D’Alessio (1996), II 370-371 n. 8; Asper (1993), 153-156. 383 Antimachus’ floruit is placed a century earlier than Callimachus’; on his chronology, see Matthews (1996), 15-18, who considers c. 444 and 385/365 BC as possible dates for his birth and death respectively. For the suggestion regarding his presence in the Aetia prologue, see e.g. Barigazzi (1956), 162-164; Puelma (1957), 173; Herter (1973), 195-196; Matthews (1979), 131-135; Müller (1987), 89-97; Hopkinson (1988), 93-94; Spanoudakis (2002), 42-44; Harder (2012), II 35 (although not absolute).

81 which note that Callimachus compares the short poems of Mimnermus and Philitas with their long ones, concluding that the former are of better quality.384 The second suggestion is based on Callimachus’ criticism of Antimachus’ elegiac poem Lyde as a ‘fat’ and not ‘lucid’ work in a verse incertae sedis.385 This line has been associated with another verse of unknown provenance where the Coan γράμμα is likened to something else;386 this reference has been understood by some as a juxtaposition of a work by the Coan Philitas with Mimnermus.387 Puelma argued that these two verses were part of the same epigram, where Callimachus compared the two elegiac poets in a way that corresponded to their comparison in the Aetia prologue.388 It has also been suggested that Callimachus’ criticism of Lyde was related to two epigrams praising

Antimachus’ poem, one by Asclepiades and one by Posidippus.389 It thus appears that there was indeed a literary discussion among Hellenistic poets revolving around

Antimachus’ Lyde. The prominence of this work lay in the fact that it was most possibly the first example of narrative elegy,390 i.e. a poem with a ‘personalised’ frame flanking a series of shorter narratives.391 The fact that Callimachus’ Aetia is

384 Callim. fr. 1b.12-15 Harder: [παρα]τίθεταί τε ἐν σ(υγ)κρίσει τὰ ὀλίγων στί[χ(ων) ὄν]τ (α) ποιήματα Μιμνέρμου τοῦ Κο[λοφω]νίου καὶ Φιλίτα τοῦ Κῴου β ελτίονα [τ(ῶν) πολ]υστίχων αὐτ(ῶν) φάσκων εἶναι. 385 Callim. fr. 398 Pf.: Λυδὴ καὶ παχὺ γράμμα καὶ οὐ τορόν. On the meaning of τορόν as ‘lucid’, see Pfeiffer (1949), I 326 ad loc.; Del Corno (1962), 66-67; Gutzwiller (1998), 220. On its interpretation as ‘finely worked’, see Krevans (1993). 157-158; Matthews (1996), 386 Callim. fr. 532 Pf.: τῷ ἴκελον τὸ γράμμα τὸ Κώιον. 387 See Harder (2012), II 35. Cf. Spanoudakis (2002), 48-49, who interprets the line as a comparison of Philitas’ poem Demeter with fine Coan clothes, elaborating an idea of Pfeiffer (1949), I 384 ad loc., who did not specify Philitas’ work that is being compared. 388 Puelma (1957), 98-99. His view was adopted by Cameron (1995), 319-320 and Knox (1993), 98, who also suggests that the Coan γράμμα refers to Bittis, an alleged poem of Philitas. 389 Asclepiades: Antim. T. 13 Matth. (= 9 G.-P.). Posidippus: Antim. T. 14 Matth. (= 10 G.-P.). See Del Corno (1962), 59, 65-67; Serrao (1979), 94-95; Knox (1985), 114; Cameron (1995), 83; Matthews (1996), 28. The two epigrammatists were included in the list of the Telchines of the Florentine scholia (fr. 1b.5 Harder), most possibly because of their different judgement on Lyde. On this, see Lefkowitz (1980), 8-9; (1981), 124-127. Cf. Harder (2012), II 90-91. See also chapter 5, p. 114 with n. 519-520. 390 See Luck (1959), 25; Vessey (1971), 2; Cameron (1992), 309; Matthews (1996), 33. Cf. Cairns (1979), 218-223, who considered Lyde as the main forerunner of ‘subjective’ Latin love elegy. 391 According to ancient testimonies, Antimachus composed his Lyde in order to console himself for his loss of Lyde, his mistress or wife (T.

82 structured in a similar way led scholars to assume that the poet’s stance towards

Antimachus involved both emulation and polemic competition.392 Aspects of

Antimachus’ poetry which Callimachus may have admired were possibly its personal character, erudition and catalogue-styled narrative,393 while the feature which he criticised was most possibly its epic-grand style.394

I do not intend to align myself with one of the two interpretations of fr. 1.10-

12 Pf., as I consider that both are plausible while, in any case, what is relevant to my discussion is primarily the praise of the ὄμπνια Θεσμοφόρος, in relation either to a longer poem by Philitas or to Antimachus’ Lyde.395 The phrase ὄμπνια Θεσμοφόρος has been considered as a direct quotation from Philitas’ poem, deriving possibly from its beginning, since it was a normal practice for ancient writers to use a phrase found near the beginning of a work as a ‘tag’ that the readers would recognise.396 Ὄμπνια is an unusual Attic epithet, first found in Sophocles accompanying the word ‘cloud’, meaning ‘big’, ‘great’ or ‘nourishing’.397 According to Hesychius, the epithet ὄμπνια is a synonym for καρποφόρος (‘fruit-giving’),398 deriving from the noun ὅμπνη which means τροφή, εὐδαιμονία (‘nourishment, prosperity’).399 This is the first time

– and the only one in Callimachus – that this epithet is mentioned in association with

10, 11, 12 Matth.) by describing the troubles that mythological heroes and heroines suffered. See Matthews (1996), 27 with n. 58, for bibliography on the topic. 392 On Lyde as an important model for Callimachus’ Aetia, see Krevans (1993), 154. Cf. Cameron (1995), 315; Matthews (1996), 37, the latter being more conservative. 393 Krevans (1993), 159. 394 See Lombardi (1993), 62-65; Cameron (1995), 303; Asper (1997), 185-186; Del Corno (1962), 66- 67. Contra, Giangrande (1974), 119. 395 See Harder (2012), II 39-40, on the various supplements suggested by scholars for fr. 1.10 Pf. for the work opposed to Philitas’ Demeter. 396 See Hollis (1978), 402 n. 3. Cf. Spanoudakis (2002), 142-143. 397 Soph. fr. 246 ὀμπνίου νέφους. See Spanoudakis (2002), 143. 398 Hsch. s.v. ‘ὄμπνια’: καρποφόρος. [τροφή.] ἄφθονος. ἀγαθή. νόστιμος. ἡτὸ ἀναπνεῖν ἡμῖν διδοῦσα. 399 Hsch. s.v. ‘ὄμπνη’. Callimachus uses the word ὄμπνη in fr. 658 and 681 Pf.

83

Demeter,400 which supports the idea that Callimachus borrowed it directly from

Philitas.401

The question that arises out of the reference to Philitas’ Demeter by

Callimachus in the Aetia prologue is whether this contradicts his alleged ‘rejection’ of the same poem in his Hymn to Demeter. However, as is the case with the Homeric

Hymn to Demeter and Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter, Philitas’ poem need not function merely as either positive or negative foil for Callimachus’ hymn, since the close connection of the two poems, in emulation as well as contrast, has long been suggested.402 This is the approach I will follow myself, as in the following paragraphs it will be demonstrated that even though Callimachus narrates a different myth in his hymn, he nevertheless adopts and adapts motifs from Philitas’ Demeter, not only in his Hymn to Demeter, but also elsewhere in his oeuvre. Before that, however, I consider it necessary to present the content of Philitas’ Demeter in order to establish the basis on which my later argumentation will depend.

As noted in the chapter on Demeter’s cult on Cos, it is not possible to determine the exact content of Philitas’ Demeter, as it survives in very fragmentary form, merely in quotations by later authors. Spanoudakis attributes seventeen

400 In later texts the epithet is frequently used in relation to Demeter possibly because of Callimachus’ influence; see Spanoudakis (2002), 143 for references. 401 Philitas discussed the meaning of the word in his Ataktoi Glossai, fr. 44 Sp. on ‘ὄμπνιον στάχυν᾿. According to Spanoudakis (2002), 142-143, Philitas might have coined the word ὄμπνια as a parallel to Demeter’s typical epithet πότνια (‘mistress’), on which see Richardson (1974), 161-162. 402 See e.g. Cessi (1908), 124-125; McKay (1962a), 105, 111-113; Müller (1987), 42; Haslam (1993), 119 n. 14; Heyworth (2004), 151-153; Sbardella (2000), 46-47; Spanoudakis (2002), 142-243, 173- 174, 293-299; Ambühl (2005), 194-197. Müller (1987), 42, in particular, argues that the three alternatives introduced with κάλλιον in H. 6.18-22 reflect Demeter’s role as ὄμπνια Θεσμοφόρος and thus Philitas’ poem as a positive model. On the other hand, Spanoudakis (2002), 295 with n. 135, argues that Callimachus ‘conceived his own poem and Demeter as a contrasting pair’ (quotation from ibid, 297). In my view, both suggestions are plausible and need not contradict each other, as Callimachus rejects the myth of Philitas’ Demeter, but at the same time adopts motifs and ideas from it. Cf. Faulkner (2012), 78: ‘rejection of the well-used narrative need not coincide with censure of Philitas’ poetic treatment’.

84 fragments to the poem,403 Sbardella only six.404 Among these only five (including the reference in the Aetia prologue = fr. 5a Sp.) are explicitly quoted as belonging to

Demeter (fr. 5a, 9, 12, 13, 16 Sp.), and three of them (fr. 9, 12, 13 Sp.) have as a topic the goddess’ lament. The latter is explained by the fact that these quotations derive from the same author, that is, Stobaeus, and more specifically from the sections of his anthology that deal with sorrow and consolation (Περὶ κακοδαιμονίας,

‘On Misery’, and Παρηγορικά, ‘Consolation Speeches’). The prevailing view regarding Demeter’s content is that it narrated Demeter’s visit to Cos during her wanderings in her search for Persephone and her reception by a Coan host, which led to the establishment of her cult on the island.405 In particular, Spanoudakis, the most recent editor of Philitas, argues that Demeter followed the structure of the Homeric

Hymn to Demeter, but ‘adapted to Coan standards’.406 According to his attribution of fragments and his subsequent reconstruction of Demeter, which is also based on alleged allusions to Demeter in other texts, its content was as follows: a description of a locus amoenus (fr. 6, 7, 8, 14 Sp.), followed by a scene of Demeter lamenting

(fr. 9, 10, 11 Sp.), a consolatory speech addressed to her by her host (fr. 12, 13 Sp.), succeeded by the description of the activities of some female servants in the palace

(fr. 17) and a banquet involving fish eating, wine drinking and piping (fr. 18, 19, 20

Sp.), concluding with a scene of Demeter departing from Cos and heading towards

Athens and Eleusis (fr. 21 Sp.).407

403 Spanoudakis (2002), 87-92 (fr. 5a-21 Sp.). 404 Sbardella (2000), 90-91 (fr. 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 21 Sp.). 405 On the scholarly suggestions regarding Demeter’s content, see p. 49-50 with n. 235. 406 See Spanoudakis (2002), 239-240, for an overview of the parallels between Philitas’ Demeter and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Cf. ibid, 225-226. Similarly, Sbardella (2000), 46, 48. 407 Spanoudakis (2002), 226. On the alleged position of fr. 15 Sp., see p. 59. Spanoudakis (2002), 235- 236, argues that the structure of Demeter reflects the program of the Thesmophoria.

85

In what follows, I will re-examine and re-evaluate the fragments attributed to

Demeter by Spanoudakis. I will begin my analysis with the fragments securely ascribed to Demeter (apart from fr. 16 Sp. which will be discussed in relation to the alleged fragments) and then move on to the alleged ones. The first certain fragment

(fr. 9 Sp. = fr. 5 Sb. = fr. 1 CA) is a distich cited by Stobaeus (Flor. 4.40.11):

Νῦν δ’ αἰεὶ πέσσω· τὸ δ’ ἀέξεται ἄλλο νεῶρες

πῆμα· κακοῦ δ’ οὔπω γίγνεται ἡσυχίη

‘But now I always hurt; another, new sorrow

arises, and from evils there is no rest anymore’.

Although the speaker in these lines is not named, most scholars have assumed that it is Demeter, who here speaks of a new sorrow that is added to her constant suffering.408 If Philitas’s poem followed the topos of gods presenting themselves to humans in human guise, one may assume that Demeter here addresses these words to a human, possibly her host, enumerating her woes in a similar way as in the Homeric

Hymn to Demeter v. 118-144, where she is disguised as a Cretan woman named

Doso who had been abducted by pirates.409 An interesting point in this fragment is the use of the verbs πέσσω and ἀέξεται. The passage appears to be modelled – primarily – on two Homeric passages,410 i.e.:

Il. 24.639:

ἀλλ’ αἰεὶ στενάχω καὶ κήδεα μυρία πέσσω

408 Spanoudakis (2002), 158-159, understood the first line as Demeter contrasting her present sorrow with her previous (or future) happiness. Pohlenz (1965), 34-35, understood it differently, in the sense that if she was a human, her sorrow would have had a limit, but since she is a goddess, the situation is otherwise. The latter’s view is adopted by Lightfoot (2009), 37 n. 1. Cf. the criticism by Sbardella (2000), 112. 409 Cf. Sbardella (2000), 112. 410 See Sbardella (2000), 112-113, for the passage from the Iliad only; he mentions also Il. 24.617 as a model, which, however, is more similar to fr. 13 Sp. (see below); Spanoudakis (2002), 159. Another Homeric passage which may be relevant is Il. 19.290: [..] ὥς μοι δέχεται κακὸν ἐκ κακοῦ αἰεί.

86 and Od. 7.118-119:

χείματος οὐδὲ θέρευς, ἐπετήσιος· ἀλλὰ μάλ’ αἰεὶ

ζεφυρίη πνείουσα τὰ μὲν φύει, ἄλλα δὲ πέσσει.

In the first instance, the verb πέσσω is used with the meaning ‘brood over’ and is transitive with κήδεα as its object, while in the second, the same verb is again transitive, but has the sense ‘ripen’ and the fruits (implied from the previous sentence in τὰ μὲν... ἄλλα) as its object. In Philitas’ fragment, however, the verb πέσσω is intransitive, which is normally used with the meaning ‘to digest’.411 As Spanoudakis notes, this use of the verb πέσσω and the combination of two models, one referring to sorrow and one to food, give the passage an ironic touch, since Demeter refrained from food while mourning.412 I would add that the antithesis is made even more explicit by the fact that the passage from the Iliad derives from a context concerned with mourning and fasting, but also eating:413 in the preceding lines, Achilles delivered the body of Hector to Priam and the two had a meal (Il. 24.596-626). The verse in question is uttered by Priam, who refers to his long-lasting grieving, merely to contrast it with the fact that he has just eaten after a long period of mournful fasting (Il. 24.641-642). Thus, the allusion to this specific scene from the Iliad emphasises Demeter’s misery, as, unlike Priam, she does not yet have her child back

(either dead or alive), while she maintains her abstinence from food and drink, as her troubles are still present and multiplying. This notion is further emphasised by the

411 Cf. however, Sbardella (2000), 112, who notes that πέσσω without an object here means ‘to brood over pain for a long time’. 412 Spanoudakis (2002), 159-160. 413 Sbardella (2000), 113, mentions the similarity between Demeter and Priam (and Niobe, cf. p. 90), in terms of the loss of their children only.

87 use of the verb ἀέξεται, as it points to the contrast between the sterility of the crops that Demeter caused and her growing sorrow.414

The next securely attributed fragment is fr. 12 Sp. (= fr. 8 Sb. = fr. 2.3-4 CA), which appears to have derived from a consolatory speech addressed to Demeter by her host:

καὶ γάρ τις μελέοιο κορεσσάμενος κλαυθμοῖο

κήδεα δειλαίων εἷλεν ἀπὸ πραπίδων

‘For when one has one’s fill of tears and lamentation,

One lifts the sorrows from one’s wretched heart.’415

This passage also appears to be modelled on two verses from the episode of Priam’s encounter with Achilles in the Iliad, 24.513-514:

αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥα γόοιο τετάρπετο δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς,

καί οἱ ἀπὸ πραπίδων ἦλθ’ ἵμερος ἠδ’ ἀπὸ γυίων416

Here the reference is to Achilles having his fill of lamenting for Patroclus and the subsequent departure of longing from his heart and limbs. The fact that there is another allusion to this specific scene from the Iliad further supports the idea that

Demeter’s encounter with her Coan host was portrayed in terms similar to that between Achilles and Priam.417 With regard to Philitas’ passage, Spanoudakis suggests that the reference to the satiation from weeping denoted with the word

κλαυθμοῖο implies that Demeter cried, which, if true, would be an innovative

414 Spanoudakis (2002), 160. The metaphorical use of the verb is found already in Homer; see the examples mentioned by Spanoudakis, ibid. 415 Translation by Lightfoot (2009), 39 (fr. 4). 416 These verses were athetised later by Aristarchus; Philitas’ allusion to them might be an indication that the discussion regarding their authenticity derived from his time. It was a common Hellenistic practice to exercise philological criticism while composing poetry. Cf. Spanoudakis (2002), 172-173. 417 Cf. Sbardella (2000), 119-120.

88 element on the part of Philitas, as traditionally gods do not cry.418 As a matter of fact,

Demeter never dissolves into tears, not even in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, where her sorrow holds a prominent position in the narrative. The first two instances in

Greek literature which contain explicit references to Demeter’s crying are

Callimachus’ recusatio in his Hymn to Demeter (Η. 6.17: μὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες ἃ

δάκρυον ἄγαγε Δηοῖ) and Philicus’ mention of the spring created by Demeter’s tears at Eleusis (SH 680.40: σοῖς προσανήσεις δακρύοισι πηγήν).419 However,

Spanoudakis argues that Callimachus and Philicus may have adopted the image of

Demeter shedding tears from Philitas’ Demeter.420 With regard to Callimachus in particular, it has been argued that his reference to Demeter’s tears as the topic he wishes to avoid and the reason he turns his attention to a myth other than that of

Demeter and Persephone, is an indirect allusion to Philitas’ Demeter precisely because the latter portrayed the goddess crying.421 Related to this is the suggestion that Callimachus’ distancing from Demeter’s tears in v. 17 may also allude to the elegiac metre of Philitas’ Demeter, since elegy has been traditionally associated with

418 See Spanoudakis (2002), 173 n. 23. He mentions Eur. Hipp. 1396: (Artemis speaking) κατ’ ὄσσων δ’ οὐ θέμις βαλεῖν δάκρυ. In the Homeric epics there is only one example of a god crying, i.e. Artemis after being bullied by Hera in Il. 21.493, 496, 506. See also Hopkinson (1984), 96; Feeney (1991), 156 with n. 116. Cf. Ov. Fast. 4.521-522: dixit, et ut lacrimae (neque enim lacrimare deorum est) decidit in tepidos lucida gutta sinus. ‘She [Ceres] spoke, and like a tear (for gods can never weep) a crystal drop fell on her bosom warm.’ 419 See Spanoudakis (2002), 173-174. Ambühl (2005), 195 n. 418, adds Callimachus’ Ia. 12.38-39 (= fr. 202.38-39 Pf.): ο[ἷ]σι τῆς μουνη[...... ].ιγεν δάκρυ παιδὸς η.[...... ] ληιστῆσ [ It has been proposed that the reference here is to Demeter, presenting her as the only goddess who could not attend Hebe’s Hebdoma since she was shedding tears for her abducted daughter; see Kerkhecker (1999), 234-235. 420 Spanoudakis (2002), 174. On Philicus, see also p. 107-108. 421 See Cessi (1908), 124-125; Spanoudakis (2002), 174; Ambühl (2005), 195. Cf. Heyworth (2004), 152-153, who considers that Philitas’ κλαυθμοῖο in fr. 12 Sp. does not refer to the goddess’ tears but merely her lamentation. However, he does not exclude the possibility of Demeter’s tears being mentioned elsewhere in the poem.

89 lament.422 This idea may be further supported by Callimachus’ choice to compose his own poem on Demeter in hexameters.423 To return to Philitas’ fr. 12 Sp., it is also worth noting that the reference to the satiation from weeping, apart from being a

Homeric topos,424 might also allude to the aforementioned theme of digesting and filling in lament, contrasted with the goddess’ abstinence from food.425

Fr. 13 Sp. (= fr. 7 Sb. = fr. 2.1-2 CA) derives from the same context as the previous passage, that is, the speech of consolation:

Ἀλλ’ ὅτ’ ἐπὶ χρόνος ἔλθῃ, ὃς ἐκ Διὸς ἄλγεα πέσσειν

ἔλλαχε, καὶ πενθέων φάρμακα μοῦνος ἔχει·

‘But when the time should come for nursing grief

From Zeus – time which alone has remedies for hurt’426

Here, Demeter’s interlocutor mentions the traditional idea that time will heal sorrow.

In particular, the phrase ἐκ Διὸς ἄλγεα πέσσειν is reminiscent of a verse from the narrative of Niobe’s myth in the Iliad, in the part right before Priam’s speech that was mentioned above in relation to fr. 9 Sp., Il. 24.617:

ἔνθα λίθος περ ἐοῦσα θεῶν ἐκ κήδεα πέσσει427

Niobe’s story is narrated by Achilles for the purpose of persuading Priam to have a meal in spite of his sorrow, as when Niobe lost her children by Apollo’s and

Artemis’ arrows, she nonetheless remembered to eat (Il. 24.602-617). Thus, Demeter is here contrasted with both Niobe and Priam in that she does not eat, if of course

422 West (1974), 4-7. 423 See Ambühl (2005), 195-196. Cf. McKay (1962a), 113-114, who suggests that Callimachus by refusing to narrate Persephone’s abduction, ‘turns his back on elegy along with threnody’ and for that reason does not use the elegiac couplet. 424 See Sbardella (2000), 119-120; Spanoudakis (2002), 175. 425 See Spanoudakis (2002), 175. 426 Translated by Lightfoot (2009), 39 (fr. 3). 427 This particular verse was athetised by Aristarchus and Aristophanes of Byzantium; again Philitas’ allusion to the verse might indicate a scholarly discussion regarding its authenticity and his approval of it. See Spanoudakis (2002), 179.

90

Philitas followed the traditional story that had her fasting during her mourning. I would also suggest that this and the previous allusion to Priam in fr. 9 Sp. might point to the speaker’s attempt to persuade her to eat, similar to those of in the

Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Metaneira, Iambe) and Philicus’ hymn (Iambe).

Another fragment, fr. 10 Sp. (= 6 Sb. = fr. 3 CA), which is cited by Stobaeus

(4.40) without any reference to the title of the work to which it belongs, has been classified among Demeter’s fragments by several scholars, mainly because of its metre and content:428

Τῷ οἴμοι πολέω γαίης ὕπερ ἠδὲ θαλάσσης

ἐκ Διὸς ὡραίων ἐρχομένων ἐτέων,

οὐδ’ ἀπὸ Μοῖρα κακῶν μελέω<ν τι> φέρει, ἀλλὰ μένουσιν

ἔμπεδ’ ἀ<εί> καὶ τοῖς ἄλλα προσαυξάνεται.429

‘So, alas, I go wandering on land and sea,

while the timely seasons come from Zeus.

Nor does Moira saves me from any of my wretched evils, but they always

remain ceaseless and are increased by others’.

These verses possibly are part of Demeter’s lamentation speech, here referring to her wanderings over land and sea and her constantly growing troubles.430 The

428 It has been attributed to Demeter by Bergk (1868), vi; Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1924), II 115 n. 3; Powell (CA); Kuchenmüller (1928); Sbardella (2000); Spanoudakis (2002). Nowacki (1927), 64-65, attributed it to Hermes, which he thought of as containing both hexametres and pentametres, and assumed that the persona loquens is Odysseus. Cessi (1914), 286-287, ascribed it to Telephus, suggesting that Telephus is the character who speaks. The latter two ascriptions were based on the understanding of πολέων in Stobaeus’ text (see note below) as the masculine participle of the verb πολέω. Wilamowitz (see above) understood πολέων as the epic form of πολλῶν, which is associated with ἐρχομένων ἐτέων in v. 2. See also the note below. 429 Here I print Sbardella’s (2000) text, who adopts the following emendations on Stobaeus’ text: τῷ οἴμοι instead of τῶ οὔ μοι in v. 1 (Kuchenmüller 1928), πολέω instead of πολέων in v. 1 (Grotius 1623) and his own emendation of μελέω κακῶν to μελέω<ν τι> κακῶν. See Sbardella (2000), 114- 115.

91 characterisation of the changing seasons as ὡραῖα, a term associated with the vegetation cycle,431 creates a contrast with the steady famine that Demeter caused because of her distress for Persephone’s abduction.432 This notion is further emphasised by her saying that her evils remain ἔμπεδ(α), in the sense that they remain ‘in earth’;433 this is an allusion to Persephone being in Hades as well as the famine that stopped the crops growing. The latter idea is implied also by the use of the verb προσαυξάνεται in relation to Demeter’s troubles, since προσαυξάνομαι appears only once and only here in a poetic text, while in prose it is commonly used to refer to the growing of plants;434 hence, its mention here contributes to the intensification of the antithesis between the increase of Demeter’s troubles and the barrenness of the crops.

The remaining alleged fragments refer to topics other than Demeter’s distress and her consolation and thus derive from different parts of the poem.435 As mentioned above, Spanoudakis’ reconstruction of Philitas’ Demeter relies mainly on his (and other scholars’) assumptions regarding the poem’s relationship with other poems that presumably used it as a literary model. In the section on Demeter’s cult on Cos I referred to the crucial role of Theocritus’ Idyll 7 and the scholia on it in shedding light on the content of Demeter. In sum, Theocritus’ digression on the

430 Cf. Sbardella (2000), 114. Contra, Spanoudakis (2002), 162, based on his adoption of Stobaeus’ text, considers the phrase γαίης ὕπερ ἠδὲ θαλάσσης as associated with the ἐρχομένων ἐτέων and not with Demeter’s wanderings. 431 See Spanoudakis (2002), 167, on the meaning of ὡραῖος as ‘timely’ with regard to the maturity of the crops and its relation to Demeter. 432 Cf. also Spanoudakis (2002), 166: ‘Demeter perhaps implies that though Zeus’ authority will grant an undisturbed succession of seasons, her own authority will keep them infertile’. 433 See Spanoudakis (2002), 168, on the use of the word in the sense χθόνιος. 434 Sbardella (2000), 117; Spanoudakis (2002), 168-169. 435 Spanoudakis (2002), 169-171, suggested another fragment as deriving from the scene of Demeter’s mourning, fr. 11 Sp. (= fr. 28 Sb. = SH 675B): ἄστλιγγας. The word means either curling flames or locks of hair. Spanoudakis thought that it might refer to Demeter’s hair, as a parallel to Hymn. Hom. Cer. 278-280. However, this proposition seems too speculative. Cf. Sbardella (2000), 95, 159-160, who includes it in the passages incertae sedis. See also Sens’s (2003) review.

92 genealogy of Simichidas’ hosts and their association with king Chalcon have been considered as alluding to Philitas’ Demeter, an idea that is further supported by the scholia. More specifically,436 Theocritus’ text mentions that Phrasidamus and

Antigenes, the hosts of the thalysia festival, belonged to an aristocratic family of Cos descending from Clytia and Chalcon; the latter, we learn, once hit a rock with his knee and thus created the spring Burina, around which poplars and elms grew to create a shady grove.437 The scholia on this passage explain that Clytia was the wife of Eurypylus and mother of Chalcon and Antagoras who were on Cos when Heracles arrived and were also the ones who received Demeter when she arrived on the island.

Furthermore, the scholia on the verse referring to Burina’s creation by Chalcon report that the same spring was mentioned by Philitas, quoting the exact verse in which it appears, but without identifying the work to which it belonged. Nonetheless, its connection with Chalcon who was associated with Demeter in the other scholion led Spanoudakis (and other scholars before him) to conclude that the passage of

Philitas was included in Demeter. On the basis of the information derived from both

Theocritus’ text and the scholia, Spanoudakis inferred that Philitas’ Demeter narrated the goddess’ arrival on Cos, her encounter with king Chalcon in a locus amoenus near the spring Burina, their journey towards Chalcon’s palace and the proceedings of a feast taking place there.438

According to this narrative scheme, the person to whom Demeter recounts her sorrow and who in turn tries to console her in the passages discussed above is the

436 Here I provide a recapitulation of the associations between the passage from Theocritus, the scholia and Philitas’ Demeter. See chapter 3, p. 49-52 for the references to texts. 437 Id. 7.3-9. 438 Sbardella (2000), 45-49, argues for a similar reconstruction of the poem based on Idyll 7 and the scholia, but his presentation is not as detailed as Spanoudakis’.

93

Coan king Chalcon.439 Spanoudakis infers that Chalcon’s meeting with Demeter took place in the course of his search for a water source for the people of Meropis and that the goddess helped him by instructing him how and where to create the spring

Burina.440 That is, he suggests that Theocritus’ brief description of Burina’s creation by Chalcon (Id. 7.6-7) was modelled on a more elaborate narration of the same incident in Philitas’ Demeter.441 However, he asserts that fr. 6 Sp. (= fr. 11 Sb. = fr.

24 CA), the only instance in Philitas’ fragments where Burina is mentioned, does not derive from the description of the spring’s creation, but from the beginning of the poem, where wandering Demeter first settles on Cos (he considers Burina as a metonymy for the whole island) with the purpose of establishing her cult there:442

Νάσσατο δ’ ἐν προχοῇσι μελαμπέτροιο Βυρίνης.

‘she settled at the sources of the black-rocked spring Burina’.443

Such a reference certainly fits the content of Philitas’ poem, as Demeter is closely associated with water and springs in cult and her sanctuaries were frequently located near wells or springs.444 With regard to Cos in particular, as noted in the previous chapter, there is evidence for the worship of Demeter and Kore in a fountain sanctuary from as early as the archaic period.445

439 Cf. Sbardella (2000), 45, 48. 440 Spanoudakis (2002), 147, where he associates his proposal with Dover’s (1971), 151 assumption regarding a divine agent leading Chalcon’s knee. 441 See Spanoudakis (2002), 146: ‘The brevity of the description is suggestive of the fact that Theocritus refers to an incident well known to his readers’. 442 Spanoudakis (2002), 149 with n. 9. 443 Adapted translation of Lightfoot (2009), 55 (fr. 21). I have changed ‘lived’ for νάσσατο to ‘settled’ on the basis of the comment of Spanoudakis (2002), 149, regarding the cultic meaning of the verb as ‘settled to found her cult’. 444 Richardson (1974), 250-251 on v. 272. On the worship of Demeter involving springs, see Hsch. s.v. ‘Ἐπικρήναια’: ἑορτὴ Δήμητρος παρὰ Λάκωσιν. Cf. Farnell (1907), III 314; Richardson (1974), 18-19. 445 See chapter 3, p. 52 on the Coan spring sanctuary of Demeter and Kore.

94

As far as concerns the scene where Burina is created, Spanoudakis once more relies on the scholia on Idyll 7 to infer that Demeter instructed Chalcon to reach the spring by following an untrodden path.446 He associates this notion with the image of the untrodden path found in Callimachus’ Aetia prologue, in Apollo’s advice addressed to the poet-narrator to lead his chariot on the less-trodden road (fr. 1.27-28

Pf.)..447 I will not elaborate on his idea here, since this scene will be analysed in the next chapter. A passage which has been considered as belonging to the episode of

Burina’s creation is fr. 14 Sp. (= fr. 17 Sb. = fr. 22 CA):448

Βουγενέας φθάμενος προσεβήσαο μακρὰ μελίσσας

‘With long strides first you reached the ox-born bees’.449

According to Spanoudakis, the person addressed here is most possibly Chalcon, who, on his way to find the spring, reaches a beehive. Bees are a typical element in descriptions of a locus amoenus, while their presence in a Demeter context is not surprising, since the goddess is closely associated with bees in cult and mythology.450

Hence, Demeter’s epiphany might have been anticipated by the appearance of the bees, while Chalcon’s discovery of the beehive may point to an aetion for the establishment of apiculture on Cos aptly involving him and Demeter.451 The reference to the bees as βουγενέας is related to the belief that bees are born from the

446 Schol. Id. 7.5-9l.1-2: ἐκ ποδὸς ἄνυε: ἤτοι ταχέως ἢ ἔξω τῆς πεπατημένης ὁδοῦ; schol. Id. 7.5- 9o.30-32: εἰσὶ δὲ οἵτινες τὸ ἐκ ποδὸς ἐνόησαν τὸ ἔξω τῆς πεπατημένης ὁδοῦ, λέγοντες ὅτι ἡ πηγή, περὶ ἧς ὁ λόγος, οὐκ ἦν κατὰ τὴν δημοσίαν ὁδόν, ἀλλ’ ἐκτός. On the unnamed person informing Chalcon regarding the source of water, see schol. Id. 7.5-9o.3-5: ἀνηγγέλθη τῷ βασιλεῖ παρά τινος τῶν περὶ ταῦτα δεινῶν, ὅτι ὕδατος ὁ τόπος ἐκεῖνος ἐνδομυχεῖ. 447 See Spanoudakis (2002), 147-149, who also suggests that the reference to the knee instead of the foot as the means with which Chalcon created Burina in Theocritus is another indication that it was located in an untrodden path. 448 The fragment was attributed to Demeter by Pfeiffer (1968), 284; his view has been adopted by Spanoudakis (2002). Contra, Sbardella (2000), 93, 143-144, who includes it in the fragments incertae sedis. 449 Translation by Lightfoot (2009), 55 (fr. 20). 450 The motif of the bee is thoroughly discussed in chapter 5, p. 116-124. 451 Spanoudakis (2002), 181-182.

95 carcass of an ox; this idea became popular in Greek literature in the Hellenistic period in particular, which may be explained by the close contacts with Egypt, where the belief in bugony was widespread.452 Spanoudakis rightly remarks that the notion of bees being born from the dead body of an ox undercuts the idea of purity with which Demeter is associated, but explains it through its correspondence with the carcasses of pigs involved in the celebration of the Thesmophoria.453 This is a plausible suggestion, although Philitas’ interest in paradoxography might have sufficed for him to refer to a well-known feature of the goddess’ symbolism with a

‘new’ term. Another short fragment that Spanoudakis considers as belonging to the scene of Burina’s creation is fr. 7 Sp. (= fr. 24 Sb. = fr. 21 CA):

νήχυτον ὕδωρ

The meaning is ‘abundant water’, apparently referring to the water that gushed from the spring at the moment of its creation.454 The next passage, fr. 8 Sp. (= fr. 22 Sb. = fr. 14 CA):

θρήσασθαι πλατάνῳ γραίῃ ὕπο,

‘to sit under an aged plane tree’ has been attributed to Demeter only by Spanoudakis, who suggests that it refers to

Demeter sitting under a plane tree near the spring Burina, corresponding to the scene in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter in which the goddess disguised as an old woman

452 Spanoudakis (2002), 183-184, argues that Philitas’ passage is most possibly the first instance in Greek literature where the idea of bugony appears, since he considers the reference by Democritus (68 B 27 D.-K.) as doubtful. On the other hand, Sbardella (2000), 144, takes Democritus’ testament as valid, while he adds another poem with the title Bougonia attributed to Eumelus of Corinth (PEG T 4). On bugony, see Ransome (1937), 112-118. 453 Spanoudakis (2002), 183-184. 454 See Spanoudakis (2002), 154, following Cessi (1908), 137.

96 sits under an olive tree at Eleusis.455 Heyworth argues that it is possible that such a scene belonged to Demeter, but not in the description of Burina’s creation by

Chalcon, which he considers more likely to have been a digression providing the aetion for the spring where Demeter was seated and not part of the main narrative.456

In any case, it is plausible that this fragment was included in Demeter.

After the scene at Burina, Spanoudakis suggests that Demeter’s and

Chalcon’s journey from the spring to the town may have been described. In his view, this would have offered the opportunity to comment on places of special importance for Demeter’s cult on the island, while the arrival at Pyxa might have provoked the narration of the story of Heracles’ landing on Cos and his subsequent siege of the island.457 It is within this context that fr. 16 Sp. (= fr. 9 Sb. = SH 673), a fragment explicitly quoted as belonging to Demeter,458 may have been inserted:

αὐτὰρ ὁ γε [.].. γ υμνὸν ἄεμμα

Here, someone, perhaps Heracles or his Coan opponent Eurypylus, if the assumption on its context is right, is said to hold a ‘naked bow’.459 The events revolving around

Heracles’ arrival on Cos are well-known from other sources: Heracles on his return from Troy decided to disembark on Cos but encountered resistance from Eurypylus

455 Hymn. Hom. Cer. 98, 196-197. See Spanoudakis (2002), 155. On the contrary, Cameron (1995), 316; Hollis (1996), 58, associate it with the reference to Philitas’ statue by Hermesianax mentioned in chapter 3 and argue that it refers to Philitas himself. 456 See Heyworth (2004), 149. 457 Spanoudakis (2002), 233-234. Coan Pyxa is said to have been named after these events; see schol. Id. 7.130-131d: Πύξα δῆμος τῆς Κῶ: φύξα τις ὤν· ἐκεῖθεν γὰρ ἔφυγεν Ἡρακλῆς αἴφνης ἐπιθεμένων αὐτῷ τῶν Κῴων; schol. Id. 130-131e: τὰν ἐπὶ Πύξαν ἦρχ’ ὁδόν: Πύξα δῆμος τῆς Κῶ ἢ τόπος οὕτως ὀνομαζόμενος [ἢ] παρὰ τὴν φύξιν τοῦ Ἡρακλέους τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν Κῴων γενομένην. Cf. Spanoudakis (2002), 191. 458 It is quoted in the marginal scholia on Callim. H. 2.33 for the word ἄεμμα. See Sbardella (2000), 121. 459 Lloyd-Jones and Parsons (SH), note that the passage is reminiscent of the γυμνὸν τόξον ἔχων for Heracles in Od. 11.607. Cf. Spanoudakis (2002), 192.

97 and his sons; this led to a wider combat between Heracles and the Meropes.460 As noted above, the assumption regarding the inclusion of this episode in Demeter is dependent on the scholia on Idyll 7, which associate Chalcon with both the reception of Demeter and the fight with Heracles. This inference seems valid, especially when taking into account the popularity of the story and the frequent association of

Chalcon with this particular event.

Demeter’s and Chalcon’s journey hypothetically ends with their arrival at

Chalcon’s palace, where they attend a banquet that involves food and music.

According to Spanoudakis’ attribution of fragments, fr. 17 Sp. (= fr. 20 Sb. = fr. 19

CA) belongs to this scene:

Δμωίδες εἰς ταλάρους λευκὸν ἄγουσιν ἔρι.

‘Serving maidens place white wool in baskets’.461

The main reason for its ascription to Demeter is the reference to wool, a product used in Demeter’s cult, especially in processions of baskets carrying ritual objects.462 The servants, on the other hand, are a typical feature in scenes at palaces.463 At any rate, even if an episode taking place at Chalcon’s palace was included in Demeter, the attribution of this fragment is too conjectural. The same applies to the next three fragments. The first is fr. 18 Sp. (= fr. 20 Sb. = fr. 20 CA):464

Οὐδ’ ὕκης ἰχθὺς ἔσχατος ἐξέφυγεν

‘Not even the farthest hykes-fish escaped’.465

460 Hom. Il. 14.255, 15.28; Hes. Cat. fr. 43a.61-65; Pherec. FGrH 3 F 78; Pind. Nem. 4.26; Isth. 6.31- 32; fr. 33a; Apollod. 2.7.1; Plut. Quaest. Gr. 304c. 461 Translation by Lightfoot (2009), 53 (fr. 18). 462 See Spanoudakis (2002), 193-194, for references to literary and epigraphical sources for such rituals. 463 See Spanoudakis (2002), 194, for examples. 464 Kuchenmüller (1928), 80, includes it in the Epigrams, while Sbardella (2000), 153, notes that it might belong to the Paignia. 465 Translation by Lightfoot (2009), 53 (fr. 19).

98

Here, the reference may be to a fishing method by which not even the hyces was able to escape. Spanoudakis understands it as a digression associated with the commodities offered to Demeter at the banquet, as fish is an alternative means of nutrition in times of famine.466 The next passage is fr. 19 Sp. (= fr. 16 Sb. = fr. 4

CA):

Φλιοῦς γὰρ πόλις ἐστί, Διωνύσου φίλος υἱὸς

Φλιοῦς ἣν αὐτὸς δείματο, λευκόλοφος.

‘For Phlius is a town which Dionysus’ dear son,

Phlius, established, town of the white crest.’467

This fragment has been attributed to Demeter by other scholars before Spanoudakis on the basis of the existence of a Demeter mystery cult in Celeae,468 a town near

Phlius, and the assumption that Philitas might have mentioned important centres of

Demeter’s cult in Demeter.469 Spanoudakis, on the other hand, argues that the reference to Phlius in Demeter is associated with the town’s famous wine and that a digression on it is understood within the framework of the banquet, where wine may have been offered to Demeter as an aetion for the unusual offerings of wine to

Demeter in Cos.470 The third fragment assumed to be included in the banquet scene of Demeter is fr. 20 Sp. (= fr. 18 Sb. = fr. 19 CA):

Γηρύσαιτο δὲ νεβρὸς ἀπὸ ψυχὴν ὀλέσασα,

ὀξείης κάκτου τύμμα φυλαξαμένη.

‘Let the voice be heard of the fawn that has lost its life,

466 See Spanoudakis (2002), 198-201. 467 Translation by Lightfoot (2009), 49 (fr. 14). 468 See Paus. 2.14.2. 469 Maass (1895), ix n. 5; Cessi (1908), 132-133. 470 Demeter refuses to drink anything in Hymn. Hom. Cer. 49-50, 200; Callim. H. 6.12, 16; Ov. Met. 5.446-447. Furthermore, her cult did not involve wine (only νηφάλια offerings); see Richardson (1974), 224 on v. 207. For Cos as an exception to this, see HGK 1a.60-61. On the argumentation, see Spanoudakis (2002), 202-206.

99

One that has fled the cactus’ sharp sting.’471

The alleged context of this passage is Demeter being entertained by the sound of pipes at the banquet as an alternative to Iambe’s jesting in the Homeric Hymn to

Demeter or corresponding to the dancing and singing of the Muses, the Charites and

Aphrodite in Euripides’ Helen (1330-1352).472 The aulos is here referred to in a riddling fashion, denoted by the fawn that has not been pricked by a thorn and thus whose bones make a good instrument.473 According to Spanoudakis, it may reflect the custom of exchanging riddles during banquets.474 However, as is the case with the fragments above, even if a banquet scene was portrayed in Demeter, the attribution of this passage to such an episode is far from certain.

If a feast was indeed described in Demeter, this must have ended with

Demeter’s announcement that she will head towards Eleusis, quoted in the last passage attributed to Demeter by Spanoudakis and others,475 i.e. fr. 21 Sp. (= fr. 10

Sb. = SH 674):

⌞καί κεν Ἀθηναίης δολιχαόρου⌟ ἱερὸν ἄστυ

καί κε[ν Ἐλευ]σῖνος θεῖον ἰδοι[.. λό]φον

‘And long-speared Athena’s holy city

And Eleusis’ sacred summit I (?) might see’476

Assuming that Demeter is indeed the speaker here, her words imply that her cult on

Cos is earlier than that of Eleusis and at the same time establish a connection

471 Translation by Lightfoot (2009), 49 (fr. 15). 472 Spanoudakis (2002), 209-210. 473 The riddling character of the passage led some scholars to include it in the Paignia; see Reitzenstein (1893), 179-180; Kuchenmüller (1928), 64 n. 2. It was attributed to Demeter by Maass (1895), v n. 12; Cessi (1908), 128 n. 4. Sbardella (2000), 147, does not exclude the possibility of it belonging to Demeter. 474 Spanoudakis (2002), 212. 475 Alfonsi (1954), 211-214; Sbardella (2000), 122-123. 476 Adapted translation by Lightfoot (2009), 51 (fr. 16).

100 between the two places as important cult centres,477 which seems fitting in a poem offering the aetion for the foundation of Demeter’s cult on Cos in the same vein as the Homeric Hymn to Demeter did for Eleusis.

Now that the basic lines and motifs of Demeter’s storyline are established, it is possible to examine the degree to which Philitas’ poem was as influential as it has been assumed, not only with regard to Callimachus, but also Theocritus and Philicus.

To begin with, in the chapter on Demeter’s cult on Cos it was illustrated that Philitas’

Demeter, Callimachus Hymn to Demeter and Theocritus’ Idyll 7 are linked through their mythological, geographical and religious background.478 In sum, Philitas’

Demeter narrates the goddess’ reception on Cos by king Chalcon, son of Eurypylus and Clytia; the same king is mentioned in Theocritus’ Idyll 7 as the ancestor of the narrator’s hosts, Phrasidamus and Antigenes, while the poem’s setting is also the island of Cos.479 In Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter the situation is more complex: the main character of the narrative is the Thessalian Erysichthon, son of Triopas and grandson of Poseidon; in this version, he appears as a young, childless man.

According to the oldest version of the myth found in the Hesiodic Catalogue of

Women, however, Erysichthon had a daughter called Mestra, who at some point was transferred to Cos by Poseidon, where she bore him a son named Eurypylus, that is,

Chalcon’s father.480 In addition to this, in the beginning of the Erysichthon narrative

Callimachus alludes to the Thessalians’ migration to Cnidus, which is closely associated with Cos, while, according to other accounts, Triopas was the king of Cos.

The fact that these poems rework the same mythological material, combined with the

477 Spanoudakis (2002), 215-217. 478 For a more thorough presentation of this, see chapter 3, p. 55-59. 479 For the mythical genealogy of the Meropides on Cos, see Sbardella (2000), 33. 480 Hes. Cat. fr. 43a.55-59.

101 notion that Demeter is in the forefront in all of them, may be viewed as evidence for their close association. More specifically, it has been argued that Theocritus and

Callimachus’ choice of topic was directly influenced by Philitas’ Demeter, which they used as their model.481 If this is the case, Theocritus appears to maintain a more straightforward attitude towards his source in chronological sequence and mythological consistency, as his characters continue to honour the goddess their ancestor once hosted, while Callimachus provides a version that ‘antedates’ the events narrated in the Hesiodic Catalogue as well as Philitas’ and Theocritus’ poems; it is thus consistent with his usual practice of attempting to ‘re-create’ the mythological tradition.482

The question that arises next is whether the correspondence of Philitas’

Demeter, Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter and Theocritus’ Idyll 7 in terms of their mythological background extends to a similarity in content or style. Considering the scarcity of Philitas’ fragments, the procedure that may be followed for the purpose of tracing elements or motifs which Callimachus and Theocritus may have derived from

Philitas is to juxtapose their poems on Demeter in order to find similarities that may point to their common source, that is, Philitas.

The most evident correspondences between Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter and Theocritus’ Idyll 7 have been traced in the description of their groves.483 In the beginning of the Erysichthon narrative in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, there is a description of the grove that the Pelasgians created for Demeter at Dotium: it was so

481 On Theocritus’ poem as a homage to Philitas, see Bowie (1985), 80; Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 135. On Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, see Spanoudakis (2002), 297. Cf. Ambühl (2005), 196: ‘Kallimachos’ Geographie kann indessen auch als eine metapoetische gelesen werden, die auf einen literarischen ‘Herkunftsort’ seines Demeter-Hymnos verweist: den Koer Philitas’. 482 Cf. Ambühl (2005); (2007), on Callimachus recreating the identity of his heroes by presenting them as children or adolescents. 483 These were noticed from early on by Cahen (1930), 269; Puelma (1960), 162-163 n. 58; McKay (1962b), 77-78.

102 thick that an arrow could hardly penetrate it (v. 26) and consisted of pines (πίτυς), elms (πτελέαι), pear and apple trees (ὄχναι, γλυκύμαλα), a spring of water

(ἀλέκτρινον ὕδωρ | ἐξ ἀμαρᾶν) and a tall poplar (αἴγειρος) around which the nymphs used to play at noon (v. 38).484 In Idyll 7 there are two descriptions of groves, one at the beginning and one at the end. The first description refers to the grove around the spring Burina which Chalcon created with his knee; this contained elms and poplars

(αἴγειροι πτελέαι τε) which formed a shady grove (ἐύσκιον ἄλσος ὕφαινον) with the rich foliage of their green leaves (χλωροῖσιν πετάλοισι κατηρεφέες κομόωσαι).485

The second description in the Idyll refers to the grove where the celebration of

Demeter’s festival takes place and is much more elaborate than that of the beginning: there are poplars and elms (αἴγειροι πτελέαι τε), sacred water deriving from the cave of the Nymphs (τὸ δ’ ἐγγύθεν ἱερὸν ὕδωρ | Νυμφᾶν ἐξ ἄντροιο κατειβόμενον), cicadas (τέττιγες), a tree-frog (ὀλολυγών), larks and finches (κόρυδοι καὶ ἀκανθίδες), bees (μέλισσαι), pears and apples (ὄχναι μὲν πὰρ ποσσί, παρὰ πλευραῖσι δὲ μᾶλα).486

484 H. 6.25-29: καλὸν ἄλσος ἐποιήσαντο Πελασγοί 25 δένδρεσιν ἀμφιλαφές· διά κεν μόλις ἦνθεν ὀϊστός· ἐν πίτυς, ἐν μεγάλαι πτελέαι ἔσαν, ἐν δὲ καὶ ὄχναι, ἐν δὲ καλὰ γλυκύμαλα· τὸ δ’ ὥστ’ ἀλέκτρινον ὕδωρ ἐξ ἀμαρᾶν ἀνέθυε. H. 6.37-38: ἦς δέ τις αἴγειρος, μέγα δένδρεον αἰθέρι κῦρον, τῷ ἔπι ταὶ νύμφαι ποτὶ τὤνδιον ἑψιόωντο· 485 Id. 7.6-9: Χάλκωνος, Βούριναν ὃς ἐκ ποδὸς ἄνυε κράναν εὖ ἐνερεισάμενος πέτρᾳ γόνυ· ταὶ δὲ παρ’ αὐτάν αἴγειροι πτελέαι τε ἐύσκιον ἄλσος ὕφαινον χλωροῖσιν πετάλοισι κατηρεφέες κομόωσαι. 486 Id. 7.135-146: πολλαὶ δ’ ἄμμιν ὕπερθε κατὰ κρατὸς δονέοντο 135 αἴγειροι πτελέαι τε· τὸ δ’ ἐγγύθεν ἱερὸν ὕδωρ Νυμφᾶν ἐξ ἄντροιο κατειβόμενον κελάρυζε. τοὶ δὲ ποτὶ σκιαραῖς ὀροδαμνίσιν αἰθαλίωνες τέττιγες λαλαγεῦντες ἔχον πόνον· ἁ δ’ ὀλολυγών τηλόθεν ἐν πυκιναῖσι βάτων τρύζεσκεν ἀκάνθαις· 140 ἄειδον κόρυδοι καὶ ἀκανθίδες, ἔστενε τρυγών, πωτῶντο ξουθαὶ περὶ πίδακας ἀμφὶ μέλισσαι.

103

There has been a debate among scholars regarding the relationship between the grove in the beginning and that in the ending of Idyll 7; most scholars argue that they are identical,487 while others suggested that they constitute two different locales.488 This issue will be discussed more thoroughly in the next chapter, as here I deal with the correspondences between Callimachus’ and Theocritus’ descriptions collectively.

These have long been noted by scholars, who on the one hand acknowledge that both poets rework the same Homeric passages of loci amoeni and their depictions contain all the basic features of such sceneries,489 but on the other hand argue that a more direct connection between them appears to be at work.490 For instance, the phrase

αἴγειροι πτελέαι τε in Id. 7.8 and 136 does not derive from Homer, while the only other time that the combination of these two plants appears in poetry – although not in the same verse – is Callimachus’ H. 6.27 (πτελέαι) and 37 (αἴγειρος).491

Furthermore, the two groves, both designated with the word ἄλσος (H. 6.25 ~ Id.

7.8), share the pear and apple trees (H. 6.27-28 ~ Id. 7.144), shade (H. 6.26 ~ Id.

πάντ’ ὦσδεν θέρεος μάλα πίονος, ὦσδε δ’ ὀπώρας. ὄχναι μὲν πὰρ ποσσί, παρὰ πλευραῖσι δὲ μᾶλα δαψιλέως ἁμῖν ἐκυλίνδετο, τοὶ δ’ ἐκέχυντο 145 ὄρπακες βραβίλοισι καταβρίθοντες ἔραζε. 487 E.g. Puelma (1960), 162-163 n. 58; Winter (1974), 17; Bowie (1985), 77 n. 47; Heyworth (2004), 147-148. 488 Elliger (1975), 330-331; Zanker (1980); Hunter (1999), 154, 191-192. 489 On Homeric passages functioning as model for Demeter’s grove in Callimachus’ hymn, see Cahen (1930), 264; McKay (1962b), 76-68; Hopkinson (1984), 5, 102-103. For Theocritus’ Idyll 7, see Ott (1972); Segal (1975), 43; Krevans (1983), 208-212; Halperin (1983), 224-227; Griffin (1992), 194- 195; Sbardella (2000), 172-173. The most important Homeric passages in this respect are Calypso’s grove (Od. 5.63-73), Alcinous’ gardens (Od. 7.114-115) and the grove of the Nymphs in Ithaca (Od. 17.205-211). 490 Puelma (1960), 162-163; McKay (1962a), 77-78; Heyworth (2004), 149-150. 491 See Puelma (1960) 162 n. 58. Cf. McKay (1962b), 77-78; Bowie (1985), 79 n. 53; Sbardella (2000), 174; Spanoudakis (2002), 246. The combination appears however in Theophr. Hist. Pl. 3.4.2, 3.6.1

104

7.8),492 rock (H. 6.29 ~ Id. 7.7), water (H. 6.28 ~ Id. 7.134) and the Nymphs (H. 6.38

~ Id. 7.137).

The careful choice and variation of elements in the two groves led scholars to consider them as artificial, in the sense that they are literary constructions, rather than descriptions of real groves.493 This notion is underlined by the use of certain terms that allude to artificial creation and craftsmanship: ἐποιήσαντο (H. 6.25), ‘they (the

Thessalians) built’, for Demeter’s grove in Callimachus’ hymn and ἄνυε (Id. 7.6),

‘he (Chalcon) made’, and ὕφαινον, ‘they (the leaves) wove’, (Id. 7.8) for the grove surrounding Burina in Theocritus. If one accepts that the two groves are literary constructions, the poets’ selection of – common – elements and motifs may point to a third text from which these derived. Taking into consideration the conjectures regarding the content of Philitas’ Demeter, it is plausible to suggest that Demeter’s grove in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter and the grove in Theocritus Idyll 7 are, to some degree, reworkings of the grove where Demeter met Chalcon in Philitas’

Demeter.494 This assumption is easily applied to Theocritus’ grove, not only because of the common features of the spring Burina, the water (Id. 7.136 ~ fr. 7 Sp.) and the bees (Id. 7.142 ~ Dem. fr. 14 Sp.), but also because Philitas is mentioned by name by

Simichidas, indeed as an exceptional poet (Id. 7.40).495

492 According to Ambühl (2005), 198, the element of shade in Callimachus’s grove is implied by the arrow which can hardly penetrate the grove in v. 26, as it may be seen as a metaphor for a ray of sun (the divine arrow of Helios Apollo) that cannot enter the grove because of the density of the trees which create shadows. 493 For Callimachus’ grove, see McKay (1962b), 77-78; Hopkinson (1984), 102-103 on v. 27-29; Müller (1987), 12 n. 18, who even argues that Callimachus’ grove is artificial, not only in the sense of a literary construction, but also of an actual artificial garden. On the grove in Idyll 7, see Puelma (1960), 156; Goldhill (1986), 37; Pearce (1988), 293-300; Hunter (1999), 191-193; Sbardella (2000), 171 n. 4. For both, see Heyworth (2004), 150. 494 See Spanoudakis (2002), 246-248, 256-260, 293-299; Heyworth (2004), 146-153; Ambühl (2005), 197. 495 Cf. also the phrase ἔτος ὥριον in Id. 7.85, which is paralleled only once, in Philitas’ fr. 10 Sp. See Bowie (1985), 79.

105

Nevertheless, there is another text of Callimachus whose dependence from

Philitas’ Demeter is more explicit. This is the ending of the Hymn to Apollo, 105-

113:

ὁ Φθόνος Ἀπόλλωνος ἐπ’ οὔατα λάθριος εἶπεν· 105

‘οὐκ ἄγαμαι τὸν ἀοιδὸν ὃς οὐδ’ ὅσα πόντος ἀείδει.’

τὸν Φθόνον ὡπόλλων ποδί τ’ ἤλασεν ὧδέ τ’ ἔειπεν·

‘Ἀσσυρίου ποταμοῖο μέγας ῥόος, ἀλλὰ τὰ πολλά

λύματα γῆς καὶ πολλὸν ἐφ’ ὕδατι συρφετὸν ἕλκει.

Δηοῖ δ’ οὐκ ἀπὸ παντὸς ὕδωρ φορέουσι μέλισσαι, 110

ἀλλ’ ἥτις καθαρή τε καὶ ἀχράαντος ἀνέρπει

πίδακος ἐξ ἱερῆς ὀλίγη λιβὰς ἄκρον ἄωτον.’

χαῖρε, ἄναξ· ὁ δὲ Μῶμος, ἵν’ ὁ Φθόνος, ἔνθα νέοιτο.

Here, Phthonos’ declaration that he despises the poet who ‘does not sing as much as the sea’ receives Apollo’s reply that ‘the stream of the Assyrian river is great, but carries much filth of earth and refuse’. He goes on to say that ‘the bees bring to

Demeter water deriving not from every source, but only a small drop which rises pure and undefiled from a holy fountain, the very crown of water’. The meaning of this passage will be examined thoroughly in the next chapter; for the current discussion what has to be noted is that images of the spring, bees and water and their association with Demeter most likely evoke a scene from the description of the locus amoenus around Burina in Philitas’ Demeter,496 which Theocritus also possibly adopted in Id. 7.142:

πωτῶντο ξουθαὶ περὶ πίδακας ἀμφὶ μέλισσαι

496 Pfeiffer (1968), 284, suggested that this scene is associated with Philitas’ Demeter, but thought that it is not possible to determine how it does so. Cf. the description of the mountain grove with bees in P.Tebt. I 3 (= Lyr. Adesp. 7 CA).

106

Τhe word πῖδαξ, used both by Callimachus and Theocritus to denote the spring, appears only once in each poets’ corpus, only in these specific instances.497 It is a

Homeric hapax, and, in fact, both H. 2.112 and Id. 7.142 rework the same verse from the Iliad.498 However, the fact that the two poets use the same rare word in a very similar context, that is, in a description of a grove with bees and Demeter, supports the idea that they reflect a Philitan image.

The motif of the spring in association with Demeter is present also in

Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter, first in his reference of the twin springs at Eleusis which

Demeter will receive as part of her honours,499 and secondly in the mention of the single spring which will be formed by the goddess’ tears and will be called βασίλεια

κρήνη, SH 680 39-41:500

]λ[.]ς δίχ[α] κρηναῖον ἑκάστης ἓν ὕδωρ ὁρισθέν

το]ύτου δ[ιθρό]ν ου σοῖς προσανήσεις δακρύοισι πηγήν 40

κα]λεῖται βασ[ί]λεια κρήνη

Spanoudakis argues that these lines contain a ‘witty reference’ to Philitas’ Demeter, since, in his view, the reference to the two streams in v. 39 alludes to a plausible contrast of two different waters in Demeter, while in v. 40 he sees a combination of two elements from Philitas’ poem: the tears of Demeter and the formation of a

497 Noted by Pfeiffer (1953), II on H.2.112. Cf. Spanoudakis (2002), 291. 498 Hom. Il. 18.825: πίδακος ἀμφ’ όλίγης∙ ἐθέλουσι δὲ πίεμεν ἄμφω. See Cusset (2002), 106, on the adoption and adaptation of the verse by Callimachus, Theocritus and Apollonius Rhodius (Argon. 3.1451). 499 These have been associated with the twin streams at Eleusis called Rheitoi, one belonging to Demeter and the other to Kore; see Paus. 1.38.1; Hsch. s.v. ‘ῥειτοί’; IG I3 79. For the identification in Philicus passage, see Latte (1954), 16; Lloyd-Jones and Parsons (SH), ad loc.; Robertson (1998), 555- 556; Furley (2009), 495. 500 Furley (2009), 495, identifies it with the Partheneion well at Eleusis, where Demeter sat in Hymn. Hom. Cer. 99. Giuseppetti (2012), 121, associates it with the single spring from which the Rheitoi derived; see Phot. Lex. s.v. ‘ῥειτά’: ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι δύο ναμάτια φερόμενα ἐκ μιᾶς πηγῆς καλούμενα ῥειτά· οὕτως Σοφοκλῆς.

107 spring.501 He further suggests that that the spring called βασίλεια alludes to Burina which was created by the foot of king Chalcon in Demeter.502 However, a direct connection between the two poets here is not easily proved, as there are no explicit verbal parallels between Philicus’ scene and those in Callimachus and Theocritus which would allow us to conclude that they all have Philitas as a common model.

Nevertheless, Philicus includes a reference to a water offering to Demeter which is reminiscent of the bees carrying droplets of water to Demeter in Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo; this is found in Iambe’s speech, where she mentions that the goddesses

(the Nymphs and Charites) offered βαπτὸν ὕδω[ρ] ἐν ὑγρῶι, ‘water drawn from the source’ (SH 680.60) to Demeter.503 Furley interprets it as a reference to the water drawn from the springs at Eleusis (Rheitoi) for the purpose of libations.504 At any rate, the offering of water to Demeter, possibly reflecting actual ritual practices, appears to be a motif which might have originated in Philitas’ depiction of Demeter in the Coan grove and her association with a spring and its water.

An interesting suggestion relevant to this idea has been articulated by

Heyworth.505 His initial thought was that Philitas may have portrayed Demeter breaking her fast in the locus amoenus, since fasting and the breaking of fast are common in narratives concerned with Demeter’s wanderings and her search for her daughter. He further proposes that the contrast between the great river and the tiny drops of water that bees carry to Demeter in the ending of the Hymn to Apollo is

501 Spanoudakis (2002), 308. He bases his first – bold – assumption regarding the inclusion of the image of the ‘two waters’ in Philitas’ Demeter on Propertius’ address to Callimachus and Philitas (3.1.6): quamque bibistis aquam? (‘which water did you drink?’). 502 Spanoudakis (2002), 308. 503 Supplement by Gallavotti (1951), adopted by Furley (2009), 490, whose translation I cite. Lloyd- Jones and Parsons (SH), 327, do not agree, as in their view, this supplement is not suitable for the space. 504 Furley (2009), 505. He argues that the ἐν ὑγρῶι refers to the salty water from the Rheitoi springs. 505 Heyworth (2004), 151-153.

108 parallel to the contrast between the rivers which Demeter crosses in H. 6.14 and the goddess’ crying which the narrator wishes to avoid in H. 6.17. Thus, he argues, the renunciation of Demeter’s δάκρυον in H. 6.17 might allude not to Demeter’s crying, but to the drops of water that bees brought to Demeter and made her break her fast in

Philitas’ Demeter. Faulkner relies upon Heyworth’s view that Philitas’ portrayed

Demeter breaking her fast (he does not refer to the assumption regarding the bees) to suggest that Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter and Philitas’ Demeter may be linked through the motifs of fasting and eating.506 However, the adoption of Heyworth’s view is not necessary for supporting the idea that there is such a connection, as it is almost certain that Philitas’ poem dealt with fasting and eating. As noted in the examination of Philitas’ fragments above, the motif of digesting sorrow instead of food and the contrast between the growing troubles of the goddess and the infertility of the crops are central in the passages concerned with Demeter’s sorrow; thus the theme of the goddess’ fasting may have been present in the poem. Likewise, the motif of eating might have been exemplified in the alleged banquet scene at

Chalcon’s palace. So, the contrast between fasting Demeter and the glutton

Erysichthon in Callimachus’ hymn is emphasised through the latter’s juxtaposition with the fasting Demeter who digests only sorrow in Philitas’ poem.

The banquet scene proposed to have been part of Philitas’ Demeter, if there was indeed one, must be reflected in the depiction of the Thalysia scene in

Theocritus’ Idyll 7.507 There, the festival in honour of Demeter is designated as ‘the

506 Faulkner (2012), 78. 507 Kuchenmüller (1928), 21 n. 7, suggested that the word θαλύσια, a Homeric hapax (Il. 9.534, where it designates harvest offerings to the gods) was first used in relation to Demeter by Philitas, in his reference to the banquet held in honour of Demeter by Chalcon. Cf. Spanoudakis (2002), 245.

109 feast for Demeter’ (Δαμάτερι δαῖτα, Id. 7.32),508 while the goddess is Demeter

ἀλωίς,509 the one who fills the threshing floor.510 This aspect of the goddess is also referred to in the third κάλλιον in Callimachus’ hymn, in the reference to her teaching Triptolemus the art of threshing and ploughing,511 echoed in the second wish addressed to Demeter by the narrator in the closing part of the frame to bring good harvest ‘so that he who has sown may reap’.512 This parallelism is further emphasised by the common depiction of Demeter with poppy seeds in her hands in the two poems, in Callimachus’ hymn when she appears to Erysichthon disguised as her public priestess, in Theocritus’ Idyll at the end.513 It is significant the poppy is a symbol of fertility,514 as the fertility aspect of the goddess is emphasised in

Demeter’s invocation as πολυτρόφε πουλυμέδιμνε in Callimachus’ hymn (H. 6.2,

119), which in turn evokes in terms of meaning the ὄμπνια Θεσμοφόρος

(‘nourishing’ Thesmophoros) of Philitas. So, the emphasis on the nourishing aspect of the goddess explains the prominence of food and eating in all three poems.

508 Cf. Lycidas’ first address to Simichidas, Id. 7.24: ἦ μετὰ δαῖτ’ ἄκλητος ἐπείγεαι; ‘do hurry uninvited to a banquet?’. On this verse, see also p. 138. 509 Id. 7.155: βωμῷ πὰρ Δάματρος ἁλωίδος 510 Id. 7.33-34: μάλα γάρ σφισι πίονι μέτρῳ ἁ δαίμων εὔκριθον ἀνεπλήρωσεν ἀλωάν. 511 H. 6.19-21: κάλλιον, ὡς καλάμαν τε καὶ ἱερὰ δράγματα πράτα ἀσταχύων ἀπέκοψε καὶ ἐν βόας ἧκε πατῆσαι, ἁνίκα Τριπτόλεμος ἀγαθὰν ἐδιδάσκετο τέχναν· 512 H. 6.135-137: φέρε δ’ ἀγρόθι νόστιμα πάντα· φέρβε βόας, φέρε μᾶλα, φέρε στάχυν, οἶσε θερισμόν, φέρβε καὶ εἰράναν, ἵν’ ὃς ἄροσε τῆνος ἀμάσῃ. 513 H. 6.44: στέμματα καὶ μάκωνα ~ Id. 7.157: δράγματα καὶ μάκωνας ἐν ἀμφοτέραισιν ἔχοισα. Theocritus’ passage has been interpreted as a description of a statue of Demeter, see Gow (1952), II 169; Hunter (1999), 199 ad loc. However, Ambühl (2005), 199 n. 440, argues that the parallelism with Demeter’s epiphany in Callimachus’ hymn supports the idea that it was an ‘actual’ epiphany of the goddess. Cf. Hutchinson (1988), 211 n. 119. It seems to me that Demeter’s smile in the same passage in Idyll 7 might be associated with the idea of the impending eating, parallel to her smile as a result of Iambe’s jesting in the other versions or her content for the conclusion of Erysichthon’s story in Callimachus. 514 See Hopkinson (1984), 119-120; Ambühl (2005), 198-199.

110

Callimachus once more differentiates his own treatment by making food not only an important element of his hymn, but the main topic around which the hymn revolves.

Overall, the above discussion has demonstrated that the most prominent

Hellenistic poems dealing with Demeter, despite their differences in terms of content, share a number of elements and motifs, some of which may be traced back to

Philitas. However, this analysis raises more questions than it answers. Two of these I intend to answer in the next chapter. The first is concerned with the reasons

Callimachus and Theocritus adopt such a great number of motifs from Philitas’

Demeter, while the second addresses the function of those motifs within the poems they appear. As we will see, by answering the second question, an explanation for the first will occur.

111

Chapter 5

Demeter and Poetics

In the previous chapter I demonstrated that the most prominent Hellenistic poems about Demeter, that is, Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter,

Philitas’ Demeter and Theocritus’ Idyll 7, complemented by the ending of

Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo, contain certain motifs whose frequent occurrence in similar contexts calls for further analysis. As already noted, the correspondence of elements in these poems may be explained by their dependence upon Philitas’

Demeter, that is, the first in this line of Hellenistic poems dealing with Demeter.

Nevertheless, this is not to suggest that Philitas invented those motifs; on the contrary, most of them were present in literary tradition, whence Philitas derived them and subsequently adapted them to suit his own poetic vision. A common characteristic of the majority of the recurring motifs is that they are traditionally linked with ideas related to the composition of poetry; this is a feature they maintain in the poems in question, albeit with an additional aspect, that is, their association with Demeter. The result is that passages featuring Demeter invite for metapoetical interpretations greatly informative for the nature of Hellenistic aesthetics. In this chapter I will first re-examine the Demeter texts from a metapoetical perspective in order to draw conclusions regarding the role of Demeter and Demeter-related motifs in the definition of Hellenistic poetics, while in the second instance I will investigate

112 how certain aspects of Demeter’s cult and mythology influenced her literary function as a symbol of the new poetics.

I begin my analysis with the ending of Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo (v. 105-

113), as it is the instance where the metapoetic function of Demeter and the motifs associated with her are best explained.515 As noted in the previous chapter, this passage portrays a dialogue between Phthonos (personified Envy) and Apollo on the topic of song. Phthonos begins by whispering into Apollo’s ear that he does not like the poet who does not sing as much as the sea and Apollo reacts by kicking him aside and saying that although the stream of the Assyrian river is great, it carries much filth and refuse with it, while bees carry to Demeter only small, pure and unsullied drops of water deriving from a holy spring, that is, the choicest of waters. At this point the poem closes with the narrator’s invocation of the god and the expulsion of Momos

(personified Blame) and Phthonos. The latter two have been viewed as representing

Callimachus’ critics or literary enemies, while the three distinct water images, that is, the sea, the river and the drops of spring water have been understood each as symbolising a different kind of poetry. The latter image of the bees carrying water droplets to Demeter in particular has been considered as embodying Callimachus’ poetic ideal, articulated by the god of poetry himself. In what follows, I discuss these points in more detail.

515 Some of the most prominent metapoetic treatments of this passage are: Williams (1978), 85-99; Meillier (1979), 91-95; Fuhrer (1992), 252-261; Asper (1997), 109-120. For more bibliography on it, see Lehnus (1989), 233-241 (until 1988); Cheshire (2008), 354-355 n. 2. This is not to suggest that this passage may only be interpreted metapoetically. For a non-programmatic interpretation of the hymn’s ending, see Bundy (1972), who understands it as a traditional sphragis containing the poet’s self-defence for ending the song too soon; cf. the criticism by Donohue (1993), 63-64. Bundy’s suggestion is related to the idea that the epilogue is only loosely connected to the rest of the hymn; for suggestions defending the hymn’s continuity, see Bing (1993); Calame (1993), 51-53; Cheshire (2008).

113

First, the notions of Φθόνος and Μῶμος are known from Pindar who uses them to denote the envy and the subsequent criticism that the success of his songs’ subjects or his praise of them may provoke.516 As noted by some scholars,

Callimachus here concretises this motif by presenting it in the form of a drama.517

The issue whether the two personified forms of criticism represent actual enemies of

Callimachus has been greatly debated, primarily in relation to the identity of the

Telchines in the Aetia prologue and the critics in Iamb 13.518 As mentioned in the previous chapter with regard to Callimachus’ alleged dispute with Posidippus and

Asclepiades about Antimachus’ Lyde, the Florentine scholia present a list of the

Telchines that includes these two epigrammatists and other contemporary poets, as well as the philosopher Praxiphanes.519 However, it is not possible to determine with certainty if the list refers to actual literary enemies or was created later by scholars who deduced information based on certain Callimachean passages, although the latter seems more probable.520 Likewise, the more general issue as to whether

Callimachus in his polemical passages refers to actual literary quarrels or merely uses them as a foil against which he is able to express his own aesthetic theory cannot be given a definite answer and need not be, as the one possibility does not

516 For Phthonos and Momos in Pindar and Callimachus, see Bundy (1972), 88-93; Köhnken (1981), 417-422; Morrison (2007), 135-136. On envy in Greek literature in general, see Walcot (1978). 517 See Bundy (1972), 46, 87, 92; Köhnken (1981), 414, 418; Morrison (2007), 136. 518 Contra, Cameron (1995), 231, 358-359, argues that each instance corresponds to different, specific criticisms; he notices, however, the similarities between the polemic of the Aetia prologue and Iamb 13 and ascribes them to an early publication of Aetia I-II and the Iambi in book form. 519 Fr. 1b Harder. See chapter 4, p. 82 n. 389. On the Telchines as malicious and envious mythical creatures, see Hsch. s.v. Τελχῖνες βάσκανοι, γόητες, φθονεροί. ἢ παρὰ τὴν τῆξιν, ἢ παρὰ τὸ θέλγειν; Suda τ 293, s.v. Τελχῖνες: πονηροὶ δαίμονες. ἢ ἄνθρωποι φθονεροὶ καὶ βάσκανοι. δύο ἐγένοντο Τελχῖνες, Σίμων καὶ Νίκων. 520 See Lefkowitz (1980), 8-11; Hutchinson (1988), 82 n. 110; Harder (2012), II 88-91. Contra, Cameron (1995), 185-232 esp. 229-232, argues that the Aetia prologue and, by implication, the Telchines’ list, do reflect a controversy among Callimachus, Asclepiades and Posidippus revolving around the Lyde. Cf. Brink (1946), on Callimachus alleged feud with Praxiphanes in particular.

114 exclude the other.521 It is likely that there was indeed a general discussion among contemporary scholars and poets regarding the ‘right kind’ of poetry, aspects of which are reflected in Callimachus’ defence of himself against his detractors, but it must also be taken into account that such passages are a topos in Greek poetry.522

Nevertheless, what is more important in pieces of polemic character like this is that they call attention to the fact that they are programmatic, in the sense that they contain the poet’s own statements concerning the nature of his poetry; for this reason they are invaluable for any study of his poetic theory.

In the passage in question Callimachus’ views with regard to his poetics are exemplified in the juxtaposition of the three water images, all abounding in literary connotations. Williams suggested that the sea symbolises Homer, while the Assyrian river, polluted with dirt and mud, represents contemporary attempts to imitate traditional epic; the pure drops from the holy spring, on the other hand, have been thought to signify Callimachus’ small-scale and refined poetry and as such is praised by Apollo.523 Critics of this view argued that there is no reason to assume that the images of the sea and the Assyrian river are associated exclusively with epic poetry,524 as the aim of this passage is rather to praise brevity and refinement over

521 Similarly, Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 68-69; Klooster (2011), 134-135; Harder (2012), II 8. Other scholars’ opinions have been more straightforward; see e.g. Lefkowitz (1980), 8, states that the reply to the Telchines represents a fictitious situation; Schmitz (1999), 163, argues that the Telchines are merely ‘an out-group and accordingly serve to define the in-group (consisting of the author and all his intelligent readers) and to strengthen their solidarity’. 522 Such passages are common in Pindar and in Aristophanic parabaseis. For examples of passages, see Lefkowitz (1978), passim; (1980), 4, 7; Klooster (2011), 116-118. On the Aristophanic parabasis, see Sifakis (1971); Biles (2011), 28-40. Cf. also the overview of scholarship in Bowie (1982), 27-28. 523 Williams (1978), 85-89. His view has been adopted by Giangrande (1980), 57-67; Bing (1988b), 55 n. 11. Cf. the similar ‘Temachos-schema’ proposed by Asper (1997), 120-125, according to which Homer’s poetry is the source for all poets, whose own works comprise of τεμάχη from Homer. 524 For a criticism of the idea that the sea represents Homer, see Köhnken (1981), 415-417; Cameron (1995), 405-406. Many scholars have attempted in the past to trace a reference to an actual quarrel between Callimachus and Apollonius Rhodius in Apollo’s criticism of the river; see Asper (1997), 109 n. 2, for a thorough account of the bibliography on this. This view has since then been successfully dismissed; see e.g. Erbse (1955), 424-428; Wimmel (1960), 59-70; Bundy (1972), 39-44.

115 lengthiness and crudity, regardless of the poetic genre to which they apply.525 In any case, the question arising out of this comparison that is more relevant to my discussion is why Callimachus chooses to represent his own poetry with the image of bees bringing droplets of water from a holy spring to Demeter. To answer it, I will investigate the implications of each element that comprises the metaphor separately.

To begin with, the bee is an important symbol in many respects. With regard to this particular passage, the bees’ significance has been considered as threefold: first, bees as bees, secondly, bees as priestesses or devotees of Demeter and, thirdly, bees as poets. All three meanings are possible and one does not exclude the other, as

Callimachus has evidently deliberately chosen an image which allows a variety of readings.526 The first interpretation that understands bees as the actual insects draws on a parallel from Aristotle where bees are depicted as being nurtured exclusively with clear water.527 Although a direct relationship between Callimachus’ and

Aristotle’s passage cannot be proved, Callimachus by associating bees with pure and unsullied water certainly alludes to the traditional idea of the bee being an exemplar of purity because of its nutritional habits.528

On the old – nowadays completely rejected – scholarly view on an actual dispute between Callimachus and Apollonius Rhodius, see the thorough analysis of Benedetto (1993), 40-91, and, more recently, Klooster (2011), 64-65, 121-127. The latter concludes that the similarities of style and subject between the two poets, as well as the fact that they worked in the same environment, led later readers to assume that there was an actual quarrel on the basis of poetic differences. 525 Cameron (1995), 406. Contra, Morrison (2007), 135-137, argues that the metaphor is related to the antithesis between short and long and refers to this specific hymn only, functioning as a justification of its brevity; thus, it must not be viewed as part of a more general ‘poetic manifesto’. 526 Williams (1978), 92-93; Crane (1987), passim; Calame (1993), 52-54. 527 Arist. Hist. an. 4.596b.14-20: Ἡ δὲ μέλιττα μόνον πρὸς οὐδὲν σαπρὸν προσίζει, οὐδὲ χρῆται τροφῇ οὐδεμιᾷ ἀλλ’ ἢ τῇ γλυκὺν ἐχούσῃ χυμόν· καὶ ὕδωρ δ’ ἥδιστα εἰς ἑαυτὰς λαμβάνουσιν, ὅπου ἂν καθαρὸν ἀναπηδᾷ. Interestingly, this process is explained scientifically by the water’s role in the feeding of young bees and the maintenance of the hive’s temperature on low levels; see Davies and Kathirithamby (1986), 58-59. 528 Williams (1978), 93, traces verbal parallels between the two texts. Contra, Crane (1987), 400 n. 3, argues that the lexical similarities are not many but he agrees that although Callimachus might not be alluding to Aristotle in his passage, he nevertheless may have used him as a source.

116

This aspect of bees combined with the ancient topos regarding their virginal purity contributed to the appellation of Demeter’s priestesses and devotees as ‘Bees’.

According to Williams, the vocabulary used in this passage abounds in notions of purity and sanctity and contains ‘quasi-religious terminology’; this facilitates thus the association of the bee-insects with the Bee-priestesses or devotees of Demeter.529

The title of the ‘Bee’ applies to priestesses of other goddesses as well,530 but its association with Demeter is the most common.531 A myth recorded by Apollodorus of Athens (second century BC) associates the appellation of Demeter’s devotees at the Thesmophoria as Melissai with Demeter’s arrival on Paros and her reception by king Melissus; according to this story, Demeter gave to the sixty daughters of king

Melissus the cloth that was woven by Persephone and subsequently made them the first followers of her mysteries, thus her initiates were thereafter named Melissai.532

Another myth which explains why Demeter’s initiates are called Melissai is recorded

529 Williams (1978), 93. Pfeiffer (1953), I ad loc., initially thought that the bees in H. 2 were meant to be Demeter’s priestesses, but later, ibid. (1968), I 284, changed his mind on account of Aristotle’s passage (and for the purpose of restoring of ‘poetic simplicity’) and considered them merely as bees. He wonders, however, about the reason for including Demeter in the passage. Similarly, Huxley (1971), 214. Cf. Crane (1987), 400. 530 Bees are also associated with Artemis, Rhea/Cybele/Magna Mater and Hecate. The common feature of these goddesses is that they are earth and/or mother goddess; see Ransome (1937), 96; Herren (2008), 46-47. On Artemis’ priestesses called Bees, see Elderkin (1939). 531 Hsch. s.v. μέλισσαι: αἱ τῆς Δήμητρος μύστιδες; Porph. De antr. nymph. 18: καὶ τὰς Δήμητρος ἱερείας ὡς τῆς χθονίας θεᾶς μύστιδας μελίσσας οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐκάλουν αὐτήν τε τὴν Κόρην Μελιτώδη; schol. Theocr. Id. 15.94/95a: Μελιτώδη δὲ τὴν Περσεφόνην φησὶ κατ’ ἀντίφρασιν ὡς καὶ Κόρην <ἢ> διὰ τὸ τὰς ἱερείας αὐτῆς καὶ τῆς Δήμητρος μελίσσας λέγεσθαι; schol. Pind. Pyth. 4. 106b: ἄλλως· χρησμὸς μελίσσας: τῆς Δελφικῆς ἱερείας, κυρίως μὲν τὰς τῆς Δήμητρος, καταχρηστικῶς δὲ καὶ τὰς πάσας, διὰ τὸ τοῦ ζῴου καθαρόν; Nic. Alex. 445-451: Τοτὲ δ’ ἔργα διαθρύψαιο μελίσσης ἄμμιγα ποιπνύων Ὑμησσίδος αἵ τ’ ἀπὸ μόσχου σκήνεος ἐξεγένοντο δεδουπότος ἐν νεμέεσσιν· ἔνθα δὲ καὶ κοίλοιο κατὰ δρυὸς ἐκτίσσαντο πρῶτόν που θαλάμας συνομήρεες, ἀμφὶ καὶ ἔργων μνησάμεναι Δηοῖ πολυωπέας ἤνυσαν ὄμπας βοσκόμεναι θύμα ποσσὶ καὶ ἀνθεμόεσσαν ἐρείκην. 532 Apollod. FGrH 244 F 89: ἐπάγουσαν δὲ τὸν κάλαθον ταῖς νύμφαις σὺν τῶι ἱστῶι καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις τῆς Περσεφόνης ἇ μὲν παραγενέσθαι εἰς Πάρον καὶ ξενισθεῖσαν παρὰ τῶι βασιλεῖ Μελισσῶι χαρίσασθαι ταῖς τούτου θυγατράσι ὄσαις ἑξήκοντα τὸν τῆς Φερσεφόνης ἱστόν, καὶ πρώταις αὐταῖς ἀναδοῦναι τὰ περὶ αὐτὴν πάθη τε καὶ μυστήρια, ὅθεν καὶ μελίσσας ἔκτοτε κληθῆναι τὰς θεσμοφοριαζούσας [[κληθῆναι]] γυναῖκας. On this myth, see Larson (2001), 181.

117 by the third-century historian Mnaseas of Patara, as quoted in the Pindaric scholia.

This account refers to some nymphs in the Peloponnesse who taught people to cease carnivorous eating and start eating vegetables. This started when one of the nymphs named Melissa discovered honeycombs and through the mixing of honey and water invented mead, and subsequently gave her name to bees; thus, no temple of Demeter would exist had the nymphs not discovered cereals, ended cannibalism and invented woven clothing.533

Calame argues that both myths may underlie Callimachus’ reference to bees

(or Bees) and Demeter in the Hymn to Apollo, as the image of Melissai/Nymphs weaving may be viewed as a metaphor of the ‘weaving’ of the hymn; in support of this, such an allusion would correspond to Apollo’s weaving of the altar of horns (v.

61) in the core of the poem.534 Furthermore, a similar idea appears to be present in the anonymous Hellenistic Hymn to Demeter, where the invocation to Demeter’s devotees as μέλισσαι is accompanied with a reference to the composition of the hymn as ‘weaving’.535 In addition, Calame suggests that the civilising aspect of the

Nymphs in Mnaseas’ myth – also implied in the practice of weaving – corresponds to

533 Schol. Pind. Pyth. 4.106a: χρησμὸς ὤρθωσε μελίσσας: τὰς περὶ τὰ θεῖα καὶ μυστικὰ μελίσσας καὶ ἐτέρωθι· ταῖς ἱεραῖς μελίσσαις τέρπεται. ὅτι δὲ τὰς περὶ τὰ ἱερὰ διατελούσας καὶ Μελίσσας ἔλεγον, Μνασέας ὁ Παταρεὺς (FHG 3, 150) ἀφηγεῖται λέγων, ὡς κατέπαυσαν αὗται σαρκοφαγοῦντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πείσασαι τῇ ἀπὸ τῶν δένδρων χρῆσθαι τροφῇ, καθ’ ὃν καιρόν καὶ Μέλισσα μία τις αὐτῶν κηρία μέλιτος εὑροῦσα πρώτη ἔφαγε καὶ ὕδατι μίξασα ἔπιε, καὶ τὰς ἄλλας δὲ ἐδίδαξε, καὶ τὰ ζῷα μελίσσας ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἐκάλεσε, καὶ φυλακὴν πλείστην ἐποιήσατο· ταῦτα δὲ φησιν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ γενέσθαι | ἄνευ γὰρ Νυμφῶν οὔτε Δήμητρος ἱερὸν τιμᾶται διὰ τὸ ταύτας πρώτας καρπὸν ἀποδεῖξαι καὶ τὴν ἀλληλοφαγίαν παῦσαι καὶ περιβλήματα χάριν αἰδοῦς ἐξ ὕλης ἐπινοῆσαι, οὔτε γάμος οὐδεὶς ἄνευ Νυμφῶν συντελεῖται, ἀλλὰ ταύτας πρῶτον τιμῶμεν μνήμης χάριν· ὅτι τε εὐσεβίας καὶ ὁσιότητος ἀρχηγοὶ ἐγένοντο. See Cook (1895), 14; Herren (2008), 32. 534 See Calame (1993) 53 n. 28. He argues that if this assumption is right, the notion of weaving would function as a connective element between the epilogue and the rest of the hymn. The metaphor of the ‘weaving’ of poetry is known from Pindar, e.g. Ol. 6.85-87; Nem. 4.44-45; 8.14. 535 SH 990.1-2: ὕμνον Δήμητρος πολυωνύμου ἄρχομαι ἱστᾶν δίπλακ’, ἀκούσατε, δεῦτε, μέλισσαι See Calame (1993), 52.

118

Apollo’s and nymph Cyrene’s civilising role in the hymn (v. 90-92).536 Relevant to this is the association of the Thesmophoria participants-bees with the traditional image of the bee-wife which embodies domestic and conjugal virtues.537 This is exemplified in Semonides’ poem on women, according to which the bee-woman is the only kind of woman who can be a good wife, since in her hands the household thrives; she is chaste and bears good children.538 A point that, to my knowledge, has not been pointed out yet, is Semonides’ reference to the bee-woman as the only kind of woman whom μῶμος does not approach,539 which is strikingly reminiscent of the narrators’ expulsion of Μῶμος right after the reference to the bees and Demeter in the ending of Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo. Hence, apart from the apparent notions of sanctity and chastity, the ideas of civilisation and domestic virtue which keep blame away may also underlie the image of Bees as priestesses or devotees of

Demeter.

The third interpretation that considers bees as symbolising poets is the most complex, but also the most important for the metapoetical interpretation of the epilogue of the Hymn to Apollo. Bees have been traditionally associated with poetry and poets, although in the earliest texts the comparison refers to honey and not bees.540 More specifically, in the Iliad song is associated with honey in its sweetness and purity,541 while a similar motif appears in the Theogony, albeit the reference

536 Calame (1993), 52-53. 537 See Detienne (1971), 13-17. 538 Semon. fr. 7.83-94. Cf. Xen. Oec. 7.32-38, where Ischomachus tells his wife that her role in the house corresponds to that of the queen-bee. On Semonides’ poem, see Lloyd-Jones (1975). 539 Semon. fr. 7.84: κείνηι γὰρ οἴηι μῶμος οὐ προσιζάνει 540 The topic has been thoroughly treated by Usener (1902); Ransome (1937), 75-139; Waszink (1974); Scheinberg (1979); Davies and Kathirithamby (1986), 47-72; Bounas (2008). 541 E.g. Il. 1.249: τοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ γλώσσης μέλιτος γλυκίων ῥέεν αὐδή. Relevant is the idea of wordplay between μέλος and μέλι; see Färber (1936), 14-15. Cf. also the ‘honey-voiced’ song in the Homeric Hymns, e.g. Hymn. Hom. Ap. 519; Hymn. Hom. Pan. 18.

119 there is to the ‘sweet dew’ which the Muses pour on the tongue of the man whom they honour.542 Honey was traditionally believed to be a substance falling from the sky in the form of dew and collected from leaves and flowers by bees.543 Instances where song is associated with honey or honeydew are abundant in Pindar,544 who however does not explicitly compare the poet with the bee.545 The bee-poet metaphor is first attested in Simonides who compares the poet with the bee as it flies from flower to flower in order to collect the honey, fr. 593 PMG (= fr. 43 Diehl):

ὁμιλεῖ δ’ ἄνθεσιν

ξανθόν μέλι μηδομένα.546

Bacchylides (10.10) next compares the poet with the ‘clear-sounding bee’

(λιγύφθογγον μέλισσαν), focusing thus for the first time on the sound of the bee and not the sweetness of honey.547 Later references to bees and poets include passages in

542 Hes. Theog. 83-84: τῷ μὲν ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ γλυκερὴν χείουσιν ἐέρσην, τοῦ δ᾽ ἔπε᾽ ἐκ στόματος ῥεῖ μείλιχα Cf. Boedeker (1984), 47; Waszink (1974), 6-7; West (1966), 183 ad loc. 543 Waszink (1974), 7; Boedeker (1984), 48. Cf. Arist. Hist. an. 5.553b.29; Theophr. fr. 190. 544 E.g. Nem. 3.76-79; Isthm. 5.53-54; Pae. 6.59; Ol. 7.7-9. He also often uses adjectives with the compound μελι- to characterise song, e.g. Ol. 11.4; Pyth. 3.64; Isthm. 2.3; Nem. 11.18 etc., while he refers to the Muses as μελίφθογγοι (Ol. 6.21). See Slater (1969), for specific passages. Cf. Scheinberg (1979), 23: ‘in four of the six attestations of the word μέλι in Pindar, honey serves as a metaphor for poetry’. 545 Contra, Bowra (1964), 15, who considers the metaphors in Pyth. 10.53-54 and Pyth. 6.52-54 as such. On the first passage see p. 124-125; regarding the second passage: γλυκεῖα δὲ φρὴν καὶ συμπόταισιν ὁμιλεῖν μελισσᾶν ἀμείβεται τρητὸν πόνον Nünlist (1998), 61, argues that the bee image refers to the interaction between the recipient of the encomium and the poet and not to the poet himself. 546 See Dornseiff (1921), 61; Waszink (1974), 9; Nünlist (1998), 61. Contra, Poltera (2008), 549, who argues that Pindar’s instances (Pyth. 6.52-54; 10.53-54) are earlier than Simonides’ fragment, thus the earliest examples of the metaphor. He does not take into account the fact that these passages cannot be considered as evidence for the use of the metaphor of the poet as a bee by Pindar (see n. 546 above). On the fragment, see further Bowra (1936), 362-363; Fränkel (1962), 369; Waszink (1974), 14-17. 547 See Waszink (1974), 16; Crane (1987), 401; Nünlist (1998), 62; Ford (2002), 126.

120

Aristophanes and Sophocles, while Xenophon is called the ‘Attic bee’; similarly,

Sappho and Erinna are compared to bees in epigrams.548

Plato was the first to exemplify the dual metaphor of the poet as a bee and song as honey in his Ion.549 There, Socrates presents the idea that poets derive their songs from honey-dripping springs in the gardens and groves of the Muses like bees and fly, since the poet is a light thing, winged and sacred, who composes poetry only when he is ἔνθεος, since a man is only able to utter an oracle when he is out of his mind.550 Plato’s view of the poet as resembling a sacred, winged bee in being ἔνθεος is based on the association of bees and honey with divination.551 The latter notion is traditional and is explicated in various instances. Bees are directly associated with divination and oracles, as Pythia’s title ‘Delphic bee’ indicates,552 while, according to a tradition, the second temple of Apollo at Delphi was constructed by bees and birds with wax and feathers.553 In other instances bees are involved in oracles, as in the account of the Boeotians being led to the oracular cave of Trophonius by a swarm of bees on the Pythia’s advice,554 or the tradition according to which the Muses directed

Athenians to Ionia in the form of bees.555 Honey as the means by which seers are initiated into augury is exemplified in the myth of the seer Iamus, Apollo’s son, who

548 Ar. Av. 748-50, where the tragedian Phrynichus is depicted as collecting the fruit of immortal songs in the same way as the bees; Soph. fr.155: γλώσσης μελίσσῃ τῷ κατερρυηκότι. Xenophon: Suda ξ 47, s.v. ‘Ξενοφών’; Sappho: Anth. Pal. 2.69; Erinna: Anth. Pal. 2.108-110; 7.13. 549 Waszink (1974), 17-19; Scheinberg (1979), 25-26; Crane (1987), 402. 550 Pl. Ion 534a-534b: λέγουσι γὰρ δήπουθεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς οἱ ποιηταὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ κρηνῶν μελιρρύτων ἐκ Μουσῶν κήπων τινῶν καὶ ναπῶν δρεπόμενοι τὰ μέλη ἡμῖν φέρουσιν ὥσπερ αἱ μέλιτται, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὕτω πετόμενοι· καὶ ἀληθῆ λέγουσι. κοῦφον γὰρ χρῆμα ποιητής ἐστιν καὶ πτηνὸν καὶ ἱερόν, καὶ οὐ πρότερον οἷός τε ποιεῖν πρὶν ἂν ἔνθεός τε γένηται καὶ ἔκφρων καὶ ὁ νοῦς μηκέτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐνῇ· ἕως δ’ ἂν τουτὶ ἔχῃ τὸ κτῆμα, ἀδύνατος πᾶς ποιεῖν ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν καὶ χρησμῳδεῖν. 551 Steiner (1986), 109. 552 Pind. Pyth. 4.60. Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood (1979), 240, who argues that the fact that this title is not attested elsewhere need not mean that it is a mere poetic metaphor, since the word μέλισσα is established as a cult title. 553 Pind. Pae. 8; Paus. 10.5.9.; Plut. De Pyth. or. 17.402d. See Sourvinou-Inwood (1979), 231. 554 Schol. Ar. Nub. 508; Paus. 9.40.1-2. Cf. Ustinova (2009), 60. 555 Philostr. Imag. 2.8.5.

121 was nurtured only with honey when he was a child.556 Honey and honeydew are naturally used in such contexts, since as substances falling from the sky, were believed to be closely associated with the gods, or to be the food of the gods.557 A relevant text is the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, where Apollo is portrayed as offering

Hermes an oracle consisting of three bee maidens who dwell on the ridge of

Parnassus; according to the god, these were the ones who taught him the art of divination in the past and their special feature is that they are able to tell the truth only when they consume honey, the sweet food of the gods.558 The identity of the three sisters has been the topic of much debate among scholars, who have tried to associate it with one of the known triads of Greek mythology.559 Nevertheless, the most prominent contribution to this discussion derived from Scheinberg, who suggested that the main function of the three maidens is that they exemplify the link between the mantic and poetic spheres through the motifs of bees and honey.560 This takes us back to Plato’s account regarding poets being ἔνθεοι, likened to bees collecting honey and resembling those who utter oracles.561 Plato’s text reflects the

556 Pind. Ol. 6.45-47. See Waszink (1974), 11. 557 See Boedeker (1984), 60. There are instances of gods being fed with honey, such as Dionysus in Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.1130; Zeus in Callim. H. 1.48 558 Hymn. Hom. Merc. 552-563. Sourvinou-Inwood (1979), 241-242, proposed that the passage reflects an actual practice of divination through prophetic bees at Delphi; however, such practice is not attested. 559 The most prominent proposals were the Thriai by Hermann and the Corycian nymphs by Fontenrose (1959), 427; Larson (1995). See an overview of the suggestions and their criticisms in Scheinberg (1979), 7-9; Vergados (2013), 567-569. 560 Scheinberg (1979), 26-28. Cf. Vergados (2013), 19, who adopts her view. The most mportant points in support if this view are: first, the resemblance of the bee maidens with the Muses in Hesiod’s Theogony (v. 27-28) in speaking both true and untrue things and, secondly, Hermes giving Apollo the lyre of song in exchange of one form of divination. 561 Cf. the image of the poet sitting on the tripod of the Muse, i.e. a parallel to the tripod of Pythia at Delphi, and becoming ἔκφρων in Pl. Leg. 4.719c: Παλαιὸς μῦθος, ὦ νομοθέτα, ὑπό τε αὐτῶν ἡμῶν ἀεὶ λεγόμενός ἐστιν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις πᾶσιν συνδεδογμένος, ὅτι ποιητής, ὁπόταν ἐν τῷ τρίποδι τῆς Μούσης καθίζηται, τότε οὐκ ἔμφρων ἐστίν, οἷον δὲ κρήνη τις τὸ ἐπιὸν ῥεῖν ἑτοίμως ἐᾷ, καὶ τῆς τέχνης οὔσης μιμήσεως ἀναγκάζεται. See Tigerstedt (1970), 164.

122 traditional association of poetry with divination,562 as both poets and seers are inspired by gods,563 both are bestowed with privileged knowledge of things,564 and both are initiated into their respective realm through honey. With regard to the latter, the motif of poets being nurtured with honey by bees is common in the biographies of ancient poets such as Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Plato,

Menander, Virgil and Lucan.565

The employment of the bee motif in the ending of Callimachus’ Hymn to

Apollo is thus partly explained by the association of bees and honey with poetry and divination, both realms over which Apollo, to whom the hymn is dedicated, presides.566 However, Callimachus alters the traditional image by depicting bees carrying water instead of honey and at the same time he introduces the figure of

Demeter, who is otherwise irrelevant to the rest of the hymn.567 The innovative character of these two points calls for their further analysis. First, the choice of water

562 See Chadwick (1942); Dodds (1951), 80-82; Kambylis (1965), 12-13; Waszink (1974), 12-13; Scheinberg (1979), 21-22 with n.82 for bibliography. Tigerstedt (1970), argues that the idea of the poet being ἔνθεος is not to be dated before the fifth century BC. He also notes that an instance where Pindar calls himself the προφήτης Μουσῶν (Pae. 6.6: ἀοίδιμον Πιερίδων προφάταν) does not refer to divination, as here προφήτης rather means ‘the announcer’ of the Muses’ speech’; see ibid. (1970), 173-174. 563 See Tigerstedt (1970), 164, on the similar words used to describe poets and seers, e.g. ἔνθεοι, μανικοί, ἐκστατικοί. Muses and Apollo interchange in their roles as inspiring poets and seers respectively, see e.g. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 2.511-512, where the Muses teach Aristaeus the art of prophecy; cf. Scheinberg (1979), 22. 564 Cf. Hesiod’s initiation in the Theogony, where the Muses enable him to sing τὰ τ’ ἐσσόμενα προ τ’ ἐόντα, ‘the things that will be and those that have been’ (v. 32). 565 For references to ancient texts, see Cook (1895), 8 with notes; Waszink (1974), 17; Scheinberg (1979), 24; Lefkowitz (1981), 59, 80. Cf. the myth attested in Theoc. Id. 7.80-85, according to which the Muses sent bees to feed goatherd Comatas with honey when the latter was shut in a chest as a punishment for sacrificing his master’s cattle to the Muses. 566 Relevant to this may be the myth of Aristaeus, son of Apollo and Cyrene, who according to Pindar (Pyth. 9.59-64) became immortal when nourished by the Horae and Hermes with ambrosia and nectar, while in Apollonius Rhodius (Argon. 4.1130) he is the inventor of bee-keeping. Cf. Diod. Sic. 4.81.2; Paus. 10.17. See Ransome (1937), 100-103; Herren (2008), 52. On Apollo and oracles in Callimachus’ H. 2, see Petrovic (2011); (2012). 567 It is the first time that bees and Demeter are depicted together in a poetic context; for their presence elsewhere, see Aristotle’s account mentioned above, p. 116. See Crane (1987), 400. Cf. Asper (1997), 114-115: ‘Die Bienen, die zunächst so wenig in den Kontext der Wasservehicles zu passen scheinen, geben dem komplizierten Gebilde zunächst mit Hilfe eines sehr geläufigen Bildes einen deutlich poetologischen Klang’.

123 over honey indicates that Callimachus is more concerned with the notions of clearness and purity than with that of sweetness as characteristics of his poetry, since, as noted above, the entire concept of bees carrying water to Demeter represents his poetry.568 These notions are further emphasised by the epithets καθαρή and

ἀχράαντος used to characterise the drop of water (λιβάς). The epithet ἀχράαντος in particular, employed here instead of ἄχραντος, is a hapax probably coined by the poet from the verb χραιαίνω (i.e. epic equivalent of χραίνω) meaning ‘to defile’ on the model of the Homeric ἀκράαντος deriving from the verb κραιαίνω.569 The creation of a new word in this context is demonstrative of Callimachus’ insistence upon purity, which is closely associated with the idea of sanctity denoted by the epithet ἱερή, used to characterise the spring (πῖδαξ) from which the clear and pure drops of dew derive.570 Additionally, the water that bees carry is emphatically ‘small’

(ὀλίγη λιβάς) and at the same time the ἄκρον ἄωτον, that is, the ‘choicest’ of waters.

It has been argued that for the expression ἄκρον ἄωτον Callimachus is indebted to Pindar, as the latter was the first to use the word ἄωτος in the sense of

‘finest’, especially in a context relevant to song and poetry.571 Callimachus evidently draws on two specific Pindaric passages featuring the term ἄωτος.572 The first is

Pyth. 10.53-54:

ἐγκωμίων γὰρ ἄωτος ὕμνων

568 Crane (1987), 402-403. 569 See Williams (1978), 95. 570 The emphasis on the sanctity of the spring is further intensified by the fact that it is a notion added by Callimachus to the Iliadic verse he reworks: Il. 18.825: πίδακος ἀμφ’ όλίγης∙ ἐθέλουσι δὲ πίεμεν ἄμφω. See also chapter 4, p. 106. 571 In Homer the word usually refers to the fine surface of wool. On the use of the word in Homer and Pindar, see Silk (1974), 239-240; Raman (1975); Williams (1978), 95. Pindar uses it as a masculine (in Homer the gender of the word cannot be determined), while Callimachus uses it as a neuter. Fuhrer (1992), 51, considers this as an example of ‘Homeric philology’ on the part of Callimachus. 572 Williams (1978), 95-96; Fuhrer (1992), 252-261. The first to have noted the correspondence between Callimachus’ passage and Pindar was Smiley (1914), 57-59.

124

ἐπ’ ἄλλοτ’ ἄλλον ὥτε μέλισσα θύνει λόγον.

The imagery of this passage is very similar to that in Callimachus’: the finest of praising songs is compared to the bee, as it darts from one topic to another like the bee that flies from flower to flower. This simile has been initially interpreted on the basis of ποικιλία (‘variety’) as the virtue of the song; that is, like the bee that flies from one flower to another in order to collect honey from a variety of flowers, the song interchanges between different topics.573 Nevertheless, the characterisation of the praising song as ἄωτος, meaning ‘finest’ or ‘best’, indicates that emphasis is laid not only on the variety of topics, but also on the procedure of selecting the best material.574 A similar meaning is present in the second relevant Pindaric passage, which contains the exact combination of the words ἄκρον and ἄωτον as Callimachus’ text, Isthm. 7.17-19:

ἀμνάμονες δὲ βροτοί,

ὅ τι μὴ σοφίας ἄωτον ἄκρον

κλυταῖς ἐπέων ῥοαῖσιν ἐξίκηται ζυγέν.

The poet here claims that songs which do not reach the highest point of skill are forgotten by mortals. The reversed order of the Pindaric ἄωτον ἄκρον and its placement in the conclusion of Apollo’s speech confirm Callimachus’ alignment with the poetry of Pindar and point to the latter as an important intertext for the understanding of the hymn.575 The association of the ἄωτον ἄκρον with the σοφία of the song and poet and these two with the song’s quality are crucial, as σοφία is a basic term in Pindaric poetics. More specifically, Pindaric σοφία denotes the poet’s

573 Smiley (1914), 57-59; Waszink (1974), 15; Steiner (1986), 107; Fuhrer (1992), 256-258. 574 Fuhrer (1992), 257-258. 575 Cusset (2002), 363-364. Cf. Kirichenko (2010), 52, who argues that Callimachus’ adaptation of the Pindaric ἄκρον ἄωτον is an indication that he provides an aesthetic manifesto based on Pindar.

125 skill to compose poetry, bestowed on him by the Muse, as opposed to the direct inspiration of song that the poets-singers receive from the Muses in Homer.576 Thus, the most important implication of the ἄκρον ἄωτον, both in Callimachus and Pindar, is the conscious and careful selection of the best quality of song and poetry, the latter being in both cases depicted with images of water (in Pindar’s passage the songs are presented as ‘streams of words’). The metaphor of the poem as water may thus be of

Pindaric provenance, as Pindar often compares his songs with streams of water and his composition of poetry as bedewing of praise.577 He also refers to the spring of immortal song,578 while in one instance he juxtaposes the nectar from his own spring with salt water, the latter understood as the poetry of his rivals; that is, an opposition reminiscent of that between the Assyrian river and pure spray in the Hymn to

Apollo.579 The notion of ‘small’ water is also present in Pindar’s poetry, as for example in a passage where the great virtue of the praised person is juxtaposed to the

‘gentle’ dew of song.580

As argued by several scholars, Pindar’s presence in the Hymn to Apollo – and elsewhere in Callimachus’ poetry – is explained by the fact that the two poets share

576 See Murray (1981), 97-99; Gerber (1982), 28; Steiner (1986), 41; Ford (2002), 93-94. 577 For numerous references, see Steiner (1986), 44-46; Fuhrer (1992), 254-255. 578 Pyth. 4.299: παγὰν ἀμβροσίων ἐπέων. 579 Pind. Partheneion, fr. 94b.76-78: μὴ νῦν νέκτα [ρ ...... ]νας ἐμᾶς διψῶντ’ α[...... ] π αρ’ ἁλμυρόν οἴχεσθον· ἐ On this passage, see Poliakoff (1980), 43-45; Richardson (1985), 393; Morrison (2007), 135. It has also been proposed that Callimachus draws on a passage from Theognis, 1.959-962: Ἔστε μὲν αὐτὸς ἔπινον ἀπὸ κρήνης μελανύδρου, ἡδύ τί μοι ἐδόκει καὶ καλὸν ἦμεν ὕδωρ. νῦν δ’ ἤδη τεθόλωται, ὕδωρ δ’ ἀναμίσγεται οὔδει· ἄλλης δὴ κρήνης πίομαι ἢ ποταμοῦ. See Henrichs (1979), 210; Morrison (2007), 135. 580 Pyth. 5.98-101: μεγαλᾶν δ’ ἀρετᾶν δρόσῳ μαλθακᾷ ῥανθεισᾶν κώμων {θ’} ὑπὸ χεύμασιν See Poliakoff (1980), 42.

126 many similarities in their poetic programmes.581 Pindar was possibly the first poet to refer to his poetry in a self-conscious manner and to emphasise the idea of the poet’s sophia.582 The concept of sophia is parallel to that of techne mentioned in Plato’s Ion in the same passage where the reference to poets resembling bees in being ἔνθεοι is found: according to Socrates, the poet-bees’ state of divine possession contradicts the idea of techne, i.e. skill or craftsmanship,583 since if poets composed poetry out of techne and not divine inspiration, they would be able to compose in more than one genre.584 Apparently, this idea does not apply to Callimachus, who composes in different genres, a practice he defends in Iamb 13, where he claims that he follows the example of the fifth-century poet Ion of Chios, who was renowned for writing in many different genres.585 Callimachus’ opposition to Plato’s view of poets is further reinforced when considering that his reference to Ion is twofold, including both Ion of Chios and Ion, the Platonic dialogue featuring the rhapsode Ion of Ephesus.586

Hence, it may be argued that Callimachus’ use of the bee motif is more closely associated with the concept of Pindaric sophia, in that the bee, apart from the notions

581 Fuhrer (1992), 261 who suggests that Callimachus’ allusions to Pindaric images illustrate his affinity with the narrative style of lyric poetry, a basic feature of which is the selection of different themes. Pindar was very popular in Hellenistic Egypt. According to Pausanias (9.16.1), a hymn to Ammon composed by Pindar was inscribed on the altar that Ptolemy I dedicated to the god, while a statue of Pindar was placed in the Sarapaeum at Memphis. On Pindar’s reception in the Hellenistic period, see Acosta-Hughes and Barbantani (2007), 436-437. 582 On Pindar’s importance for Callimachus as a self-conscious poet, see Richardson (1985), 383-384. 583 On the meaning of techne in Plato’s Ion, see Murray (1998), 8-10; Ford (2002), 173-175. 584 Pl. Ion 534b-d: ἅτε οὖν οὐ τέχνῃ ποιοῦντες καὶ πολλὰ λέγοντες καὶ καλὰ περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων, ὥσπερ σὺ περὶ Ὁμήρου, ἀλλὰ θείᾳ μοίρᾳ, τοῦτο μόνον οἷός τε ἕκαστος ποιεῖν καλῶς ἐφ’ ὃ ἡ Μοῦσα αὐτὸν ὥρμησεν, ὁ μὲν διθυράμβους, ὁ δὲ ἐγκώμια, ὁ δὲ ὑπορχήματα, ὁ δ’ ἔπη, ὁ δ’ ἰάμβους· τὰ δ’ ἄλλα φαῦλος αὐτῶν ἕκαστός ἐστιν. οὐ γὰρ τέχνῃ ταῦτα λέγουσιν ἀλλὰ θείᾳ δυνάμει, ἐπεί, εἰ περὶ ἑνὸς τέχνῃ καλῶς ἠπίσταντο λέγειν, κἂν περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων· διὰ ταῦτα δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἐξαιρούμενος τούτων τὸν νοῦν τούτοις χρῆται ὑπηρέταις καὶ τοῖς χρησμῳδοῖς καὶ τοῖς μάντεσι τοῖς θείοις, ἵνα ἡμεῖς οἱ ἀκούοντες εἰδῶμεν ὅτι οὐχ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντες οὕτω πολλοῦ ἄξια, οἷς νοῦς μὴ πάρεστιν, ἀλλ’ ὁ θεὸς αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ λέγων, διὰ τούτων δὲ φθέγγεται πρὸς ἡμᾶς. 585 Clayman (1980), 50; Hunter (1989), 2. 586 Thus Hunter (1997), 46. Cf. Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2012), 47-57, who argue that the ‘mixing of Ions’ goes even further, since Callimachus imitating Ion of Ephesus in Ia. 13 corresponds to Ion of Chios imitating Homer in Plato’s Ion.

127 of sanctity and purity,587 symbolises the selectivity and craftsmanship of the poet rather than his divinely originated inspiration.588 The importance of the poet’s skill is emphasised in the Aetia prologue, where both the Pindaric and Platonic terms, i.e. techne and sophia, are employed; there, Callimachus urges the Telchines to judge poetry (sophia) by its art (techne), thus indicating his understanding of poetry as craft and of the criterion for its quality as the poet’s skill.589

Nevertheless, it has been thought that Callimachus does not completely reject the idea of divine inspiration in the Platonic sense, as this underlies the image of the cicada which he employs in the same passage from the Aetia prologue;590 that is, following Apollo’s advice on driving one’s chariot in untrodden paths, the poet- narrator exclaims that he sings ‘among those who love the clear sound of the cicadas and not the noise of the asses’ and further wishes to be ‘the slender, the winged one’ and sing while feeding on dew only (δρόσον), the ‘food of the divine air’.591 The view that the notion of divine inspiration is present in this passage has been based on the similarity between the wish to become the small or slender and winged one

(οὑλαχύς, ὁ πτερόεις, fr. 1.32 Pf.), linked to the poet’s likening with the cicada, with

Plato’s depiction of the possessed bee-poet as a light, winged and sacred thing in Ion

587 Cf. Pind. fr. 123.11: ἱερᾶν μελισσᾶν τάκομαι; fr.158: ταῖς ἱεραῖς μελίσσαις τέρπεται. 588 Relevant here is the comparison of song with the bee in Pind. Pyth. 10.53-54 examined above, p. 124-125; see Fuhrer (1992), 259 n. 853. Cf. Acosta-Hughes (2002), 89, who notes that ‘Socrates uses the metaphor to demonstrate the unstable nature of the poetic genius. Callimachus uses it to draw on a traditional imagery of the sacred and the refined’. 589 Aet. fr. 1.17-18 Pf. (= fr. 1. 17-18 Harder): ἔλλετε Βασκανίη⌟ς ὀλοὸν γένος· αὖθι δὲ τέχνῃ κρίνετε,] ⌞μὴ σχοίν⌟ῳ Περσίδι τὴ⌞ν⌟ σοφίην· See Harder (2012), II 51-52 ad loc. 590 See Hunter (1989), 1-2. 591 Aet. fr. 1.29-32 Pf. (fr. 1.29-32 Harder): […] ἐνὶ τοῖς γὰρ ἀείδομεν οἳ λιγὺν ἦχον τέττιγος, θ]όρυβον δ’ οὐκ ἐφίλησαν ὄνων. 30 θηρὶ μὲν ο⌟ὐατόεντι πανείκελον ὀγκήσαιτο ἄλλος, ἐγ]ὼ δ’ εἴην οὑλ [α]χύς, ὁ πτερόεις, ἆ πάντ⌟ως, ἵνα γῆρας ἵνα δρόσον ἣν μὲν ἀείδω πρώκιο⌟ν ἐκ δίης ἠέρος εἶδαρ ἔδων.

128

(κοῦφον γὰρ χρῆμα ποιητής ἐστιν καὶ πτηνὸν καὶ ἱερόν, 534b.3-4).592 Plato’s portrayal of the cicada, on the other hand, does not have connotations of the idea of being entheos in the sense of ‘divinely possessed’, as is the case with the bee-poet.

More specifically, Plato in his Phaedrus records a myth explaining the origins of the cicada’s song which directly links the cicada with the Muses without, however, referring to the notion of poetic ‘ecstasy’. According to Socrates, cicadas were originally men who, when the Muses were born and music was invented, were so drawn into music that they sang continuously, neglecting to eat or drink and eventually died; nevertheless, the Muses rewarded them by bestowing on them the ability to sing eternally as cicadas without need of food and drink.593

Callimachus’ initial reference to the cicada motif is related to the quality of sound: the clear song of the cicadas with which the poet aligns himself is opposed to the braying of asses, which plausibly represents the criticisms that the Telchines cast against him.594 The poet’s adoption of the voice of the cicada derives from the insect’s close connection with the Muses, since this is parallel to that of the poet himself, as emphasised at the end of the prologue,595 and thus opposed to the asses-

Telchines who are explicitly presented as ‘not friends of the Muse’ in the beginning

592 Hunter (1989), 2; Depew (1992), 327 n. 38; Ambühl (1995), 210. 593 Pl. Phdr. 259b.5-259d.8: λέγεται δ’ ὥς ποτ’ ἦσαν οὗτοι ἄνθρωποι τῶν πρὶν Μούσας γεγονέναι, γενομένων δὲ Μουσῶν καὶ φανείσης ᾠδῆς οὕτως ἄρα τινὲς τῶν τότε ἐξεπλάγησαν ὑφ’ ἡδονῆς, ὥστε ᾄδοντες ἠμέλησαν σίτων τε καὶ ποτῶν, καὶ ἔλαθον τελευτήσαντες αὑτούς· ἐξ ὧν τὸ τεττίγων γένος μετ’ ἐκεῖνο φύεται, γέρας τοῦτο παρὰ Μουσῶν λαβόν, μηδὲν τροφῆς δεῖσθαι γενόμενον, ἀλλ’ ἄσιτόν τε καὶ ἄποτον εὐθὺς ᾄδειν, ἕως ἂν τελευτήσῃ, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐλθὸν παρὰ Μούσας ἀπαγγέλλειν τίς τίνα αὐτῶν τιμᾷ τῶν ἐνθάδε. καὶ οὐ καθευδητέον ἐν τῇ μεσημβρίᾳ. See Borthwick (1966), 107; Boedeker (1984), 44-45. 594 The cicada’s song being beautiful is a topos in Greek literature; see Hes. Op. 582-584; [Sc.] 393; Alc. fr. 347; Ar. Nub. 1360; Anacreont. 19, etc. Cf. Crane (1986), 272-273; Davies and Kathirithamby (1986), 117; Harder (2012), II 70. On the asses’ braying being ‘out of tune’, see Ael. NA 10.28. On the contrasts in terms of sound in the Aetia prologue, see Andrews (1998), 6-8; Harder (2012), II 71- 72. 595 Aet. fr. 1.37-38 Pf.: ...... Μοῦσαι γ⌟ὰρ ὅσους ἴδον ὄθμα⌞τ⌟ι παῖδας μὴ λοξῷ, πολιοὺς⌟ οὐκ ἀπέθεντο φίλους.

129 of the prologue.596 Callimachus differentiates his presentation of the cicada from that of Plato as he imagines himself as a cicada living only on dew, while in Plato the cicadas abstain from food and drink completely. Considering the preceding comparison of the cicadas with the asses, Callimachus’ depiction of the former as feeding on dew, which is a traditional idea,597 most possibly draws also on an

Aesop’s fable according to which an ass, in his effort to imitate the cicada’s song, decided to feed only on dew and eventually died.598 It has also been argued that the reference to the poet’s old age in the same context as the feeding on dew and singing like the cicada may allude to the myth of Tithonus, recorded by Hellanicus and alluded to in the New Sappho papyrus and possibly in the Homeric Hymn to

Aphrodite.599 According to this myth, Tithonus was loved by Eos, who wished and acquired immortality for him but not eternal youth; the result was that he kept growing older until Eos transformed him into a cicada, or, according to the Homeric

Hymn to Aphrodite, he was shut in a small chamber by Aphrodite from where his voice never ceased to be heard.600 Thus the cicada functions also as a metaphor for

596 Aet. fr. 1.2 Pf.: νήιδε⌟ς οἳ Μούσης οὐκ ἐγένοντο φίλοι. See Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2002), 252-253. 597 Hes. [Sc.].393-401; Arist. Hist. an. 4.532b.13, 5.556b.16; Theoc. Id. 1.15-16; Plin. HN 11.93-94. Cf. Gow (1952), II 80 on Id. 4.16; Davies and Kathirithamby (1986), 123-124. 598 Aesop. Fab. 184 Perry. See Crane (1986), 273; Harder (2012), II 70-71. 599 Hellanicus FGrH 4 F 140 (fifth century BC); Sappho fr. 58 (=P.Köln inv. 58.21351 + P.Oxy. 1787); Hymn. Hom. to Ven. 218-238. See Rawles (2006), 6, on the view that the myth underlies the version in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Sappho. On Callimachus alluding to the Tithonus myth, see Crane (1986), 269-275; Geissler (2005); Harder (2012), II 70. Contra, Pfeiffer (1928), 325 n. 1, who opposed to the idea that the Aetia prologue is associated with Tithonus’ myth. Another text which may be evoked in this passage is the description of the Trojan old men compared to the cicadas in the Iliad (Il. 3.150-152), as it combines old age, cicadas and ‘sweet talk’. Interestingly, the metaphor of the cranes and the pygmies, also adopted by Callimachus in the Aetia prologue, derives from the opening of the same book. See Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2002), 251-252. 600 Tithonus is also mentioned in the Homeric epics (Il. 20.237; 11.1; Od. 5.1), Tyrtaeus (12.5) and Mimnermus (4.1). Cf. West (2005), 6; Rawles (2006), 2.

130 the poet’s ‘poetic immortality’,601 a notion which will be further analysed in the final section of this chapter.

Overall, the motif of the cicada as presented in the Aetia prologue has several connotations, but divine possession is not among them. As in the case of the bee image, Callimachus employs the image of the cicada, a motif of particular importance for the Platonic theory on poetry, and by inserting it in a different context emphasises other aspects of it, such as the association with the Muses, the notion of its clearly sounding song and its lightness and smallness. With regard to the idea of divine inspiration, Callimachus’ likening himself to the cicada does not imply that he receives the song itself (as in Ion) from the Muses; he receives from them the skill to compose poetry.602 It is significant that Callimachus’ interaction with the Muses in the Aetia takes the form of a dialogue where the poet asks and the Muses answer (see below on the scene of poetic initiation in the Aetia),603 while Apollo’s intervention in the prologue has rather the character of advice on how to write poetry, similar to that in the epilogue of Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo.

The issue that has not been addressed yet with regard to the epilogue of the

Hymn to Apollo is the reason for Demeter’s presence in this particular context. First,

I would suggest that the goddess’ appearance in a hymn dedicated to Apollo that narrates, among other things, the foundation of Cyrene by Battus on Apollo’s advice

(65-96) is related to her role in Cyrene’s religious life, since, as noted in chapter 2,

Demeter’s cult in Cyrene was second in prominence after that of Apollo. Petrovic has recently discussed the relationship between Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo and the

601 Acosta-Hughes (2010), 78-81; Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2012), 38, 251-253. 602 Cf. Krevans (1993), 157-159. 603 On Callimachus’ Muses as sources of information and not inspiration, see Pretagostini (1995), 165- 172; Cameron (1995), 368; Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2002), 249.

131

Cyrenean sacred regulations concerned with purity, which are unique in the Greek world in that they are presented as an oracle uttered by Apollo himself.604 The latter feature, she notes, corresponds with the ending of Callimachus’ hymn, where the god himself offers instructions regarding the purity of the water destined to be offered to

Demeter by her ‘Bees’. However, she does not explain why Apollo chooses to refer to a Demeter ritual, especially considering that the goddess appears here for the first time in the hymn.605 The answer to this is that Apollo in his role as the regulator of

Cyrenean purification rituals is understandably concerned with the next most important cult in his city, that is, Demeter’s.

Petrovic proposes another interesting view, that is, that the entire Hymn to

Apollo is to be understood as Callimachus’ religious offering to Apollo in the same way as the droplets of water are the offering of Demeter’s priestesses to the goddess.606 This suggestion is convincing, especially when taking into account that the hymn and the droplets share the same qualities of purity, sanctity and smallness.

Nevertheless, the pure droplets offered to Demeter need not be understood exclusively in their literal religious sense, but also as a metaphor for a ‘pure’ poem being offered to Demeter; such a poem was Philitas’ Demeter. As mentioned in

Chapter 4, the epilogue of the Hymn to Apollo reworks motifs that were present in

Philitas’ Demeter: bees, the spring Burina and Demeter herself were all part of the

604 Petrovic (2012), 289-297. 605 Nevertheless, Petrovic in support of her suggestion regarding Apollo’s role as a ‘lawgiver of hymns’, mentions an oracular metrical regulation from Cyrene dated to c. 300 AD (SGO I 01/19/08), which refers to Apollo’s approval of the establishment of the cult and altar of Soteira Kore near to that of Demeter in his sanctuary and his instructions regarding the right invocations of the two goddesses in hymns; see Petrovic (2012), 299-300. 606 Petrovic (2012), 296. On the poems as agalmata (sacral offerings), see also Depew (2000), 30; Hunter (2006b), 15. The latter suggests that bees carrying the water droplets to Demeter interpreted as a metaphor for poetry points to the understanding of poetry as a sacral offering.

132 locus amoenus on Cos.607 Although many of these elements were adopted from literary tradition earlier than Philitas, it is very possibly that Callimachus was influenced by Philitas’ employment and adaptation of these particular motifs. At any rate, the point where Callimachus was most likely following Philitas is the unique association of motifs which were traditionally used in poetic metaphors with

Demeter.608 The question of whether the notions implied in Callimachus’ imagery were present (or equally prominent) in Philitas’ poem or Callimachus rather adopted the imagery from Philitas and ascribed to it a further symbolism through the combination of elements and the use of certain epithets cannot be answered.

However, if the parallelism between the Hymn to Apollo and Demeter as pure and small offerings to the respective gods is right,609 this would mean that Philitas’ poem was much concerned with purity as well.610 This idea is further supported by the fact that special purificatory regulations referring to Demeter’s priestesses are attested for

Cos, as the analysis in chapter 3 demonstrated. Thus Callimachus in presenting

Apollo concerned with purity regulations as a reflection of his role in Cyrene may be reacting to an analogous motif in Philitas’ Demeter which reflected the special purity requirements of Demeter’s priestesses on Cos.611

607 The close relationship between Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo and Philitas’ Demeter is illustrated by the use of the Philitan word ἄεμμα (fr. 16 Sp.) in H. 2.33 and their common allusion to Il. 24.617 (Niobe/Niobe’s rock crying), Callimachus in H. 2.22-24, Philitas in fr. 13 Sp. See also chapter 4, p. 105-107, 109-110. 608 It is indicative that even the image of the bee that was closely linked with Demeter in myth and cult is for the first time used in relation to the goddess in a poetic metaphor in Callimachus. 609 The ‘smallness’ of Philitas’ Demeter implied in ὀλίγη λιβάς is supported by its characterisation as ὀλιγόστιχος in the Aetia prologue (fr. 1.9 Pf.). For the poems as offerings to the gods, cf. Philicus offering his Hymn to Demeter as a gift to Demeter, Kore and Clymenus, as well as to the grammarians. 610 Note, however, Philitas’ fragment referring to ox-born bees (fr. 14 Sp.). If this belonged indeed to Demeter, its juxtaposition with Callimachus’ passage where bees appear in a context abounding with notions of purity and cleanliness would emphasise the latter’s insistence upon purity even more explicitly. 611 Cf. Spanoudakis (2002), 273-274, who argues that the affinity between the Hymn to Apollo and Philitas’ Demeter is based on ‘Cyrene’s similarity to Cos, Apollo’s similarity to Demeter and on the

133

The issue that has not yet been addressed is what the notions represented in the imagery employed in the epilogue of the Hymn to Apollo mean for Callimachus’ poetry itself.612 First, the prevailing idea of purity that is embodied in all components of the metaphor, i.e. bees, droplets, spring, Demeter, refers primarily to the originality and rarity of the sources which the poet uses.613 Closely related to this is the notion of selectivity implied in the motif of the bee, which represents the procedure of careful selection and reworking of material that the poet’s techne, combined with his capacity as a scholar, dictates.614 Finally, the concept of smallness depicted in the small dewdrop refers to the refinement and subtlety of poetry, while the idea of the spring’s sanctity emphasises the quality and exclusive character of

Callimachus’ poetry.615

Before examining Callimachus’ other poem that features Demeter, that is, his

Hymn to Demeter, I will discuss Theocritus’ Idyll 7, as it is more closely associated with the epilogue of the Hymn to Apollo in the motifs it employs as well as in its dependence upon Philitas’ Demeter. Idyll 7 has attracted possibly the greatest amount of scholarly attention of all Theocritus’ Idylls, with various interpretations having been proposed both for the entire poem as well as its specific details.616 The reason for its prominence within the Theocritean corpus is primarily the fact that it is

similarity between Philitas’ allegiance to Cos and Callimachus’ allegiance to Cyrene’. The two places share their Dorian character; furthermore, each god’s cult was of great significance in the two places respectively. He also suggests (p. 277) that the association of Apollo with the swan and Demeter with bees as pure and poetic creatures in the Hymn to Apollo is another indication of his dependence on Philitas. 612 See Fuhrer (1992), 258-260. 613 Pfeiffer (1968), 126. 614 Depew (2007), 156-157. 615 Cf. Callim. Epigr. 28 Pf. On the sanctity of the springs in cult, see Farnell (1909), V 420-421. 616 For lists of bibliography, see Goldhill (1991), 225; Hunter (1999), 151.

134 considered a programmatic poem, in the sense that it is informative on the nature of

Theocritus’ poetry and bucolic poetry in general.617

As noted in the previous chapters, in Idyll 7 Simichidas, the poem’s first- person narrator, recounts how once while on his way to attend a harvest celebration

(Thalysia) in honour of Demeter hosted by Phrasidamus and Antigenes, he met a goatherd named Lycidas whom he invited to a singing competition. After the two men exchanged songs, Lycidas headed off in a different direction, while Simichidas and his friends arrived at the place of the Thalysia. The majority of scholarly treatments have focused on the symbolism behind the encounter of Simichidas and

Lycidas which they have generally regarded as an allegory for a poetic investiture modelled on that of Hesiod in the Theogony;618 this interpretation is closely related to the question of the identity of the two personae in the Idyll, which has also troubled scholars. In what follows I briefly present these two issues and some of the scholarly views proposed in their answer, in order to establish the background against which

Demeter’s function in the poem will be explicated.

I begin with the issue of the identity of the two characters in Idyll 7. With regard to Simichidas, the discussion centred on his relationship with the poet

Theocritus; the first-person narration and the seeming similarities between the two led ancient scholiasts to identify Simichidas with the poet, while modern research has generally acknowledged that, while there is no direct identification between the two,

617 See e.g. Gow (1952), II; Lawall (1967); Goldhill (1991); Hunter (1999). In the past, the poem has also been interpreted within the framework of a ‘masquerade bucolique’ that saw in Theocritus’ herdsmen contemporary poets disguised as such. This view was first proposed by Reitzenstein (1893), 226, adopted by Van Groningen (1959), 45-48. For criticisms of this interpretation, see Wilamowitz- Moellendorff (1924), II 138; Gow (1940), 47-51; (1952), II 129-130; Arnott (1984), 338-339. 618 See e.g. Van Groningen (1959); Puelma, (1960); Giangrande (1968), 491-533; Lawall (1967), 78, 84-85; Rosenmeyer (1969), 136; Segal (1974a), 22; Winter (1974), 19-21, 39; Hunter (1999); Payne (2007), 117; Klooster (2011).

135 yet they are closely related.619 The question of Lycidas’ identity has been more difficult to answer. According to the narrator-Simichidas, Lycidas is a goatherd whom nobody would fail to recognise, since he really looked like a goatherd,620 as is indicated by the detailed description of his appearance.621 He further characterises him as ἐσθλόν, an unusual epithet for a goatherd,622 and addresses him as the best piper among herdsmen and reapers.623 Several ideas have been proposed regarding

Lycidas’ identity; these may be divided into three categories: those that consider him as a mortal person, those that see in him a god in disguise, and those that assume he is an imaginary character.624 The first category includes proposals referring to a real

Coan goatherd-poet, a poet disguised as a goatherd and a real poet portrayed by

Theocritus as a goatherd.625 For the second category, Apollo, Pan and the figure of a satyr have been suggested,626 while to the third category belongs Bowie’s suggestion that Lycidas may be a character from Philitas’ bucolic poetry.627 Some elements

619 On Theocritus’ relationship with Simichidas, see Gow (1940), 47; (1952), II 128; Dover (1971), 147-148; Bowie (1985), 68; Hunter (1999), 146; Morrison (2007), 259, 265-266; Klooster (2011), 196. 620 Id. 7.13-14: οὔνομα μὲν Λυκίδαν, ἦς δ’ αἰπόλος, οὐδέ κέ τίς νιν ἠγνοίησεν ἰδών, ἐπεὶ αἰπόλῳ ἔξοχ’ ἐῴκει. 621 Id. 7.15-19. 622 Id. 7.12: ἐσθλὸν σὺν Μοίσαισι Κυδωνικὸν εὕρομες ἄνδρα. See Hunter (1999), 156. 623 Id. 7.27-29: […] φαντί τυ πάντες ἦμεν συρικτὰν μέγ’ ὑπείροχον ἔν τε νομεῦσιν ἔν τ’ ἀματήρεσσι. 624 See the summaries compiled by Dover (1971), 148-150; Clauss (2003), 290-291 with n. 1-8. 625 The poets suggested as Lycidas’ concealed alter-ego are mentioned by Gow (1952), II 130. Cf. also Furusawa (1980), 96-97, who argues that the poem narrates a real event and that the personae are historical persons. Similarly, Zagagi (1984), considers the poems as a reflection of a real event in Theocritus’ life. 626 For Apollo, see Williams (1971) and Livrea (2004); for Pan, see Brown (1981) and Clauss (2003); for the satyr, see Lawall (1967), 10-11, 74, who also argues that Simichidas and Lycidas embody two different ‘faces’ of the poet Theocritus, the former him as a man and the latter him as a poet (his inner self), thus the poem in its entirety symbolises ‘his poetic existence in terms of pastoral life’ (quotation from p. 74). Cf. Kühn (1958), who argues that Simichidas represents ‘town’ Theocritus and Lycidas Theocritus of the countryside. 627 Bowie (1985); his proposal was based on the numerous allusions to Philitas in the Idyll and on a character named Philetas in Longus’ romance Daphnis and Chloe, who resembles Lycidas and is

136 which have contributed to the scholarly view of Lycidas as a god are his sudden appearance in the scene without a reference to a specific destination, his smile reminiscent of divine smiles, his address to Simichidas only out of the three friends, and, finally, the fact that the entire meeting scene resembles Homeric scenes of encounter, particularly those between a mortal and a god in disguise.628 However, it has also been noted that the description of the meeting in Idyll 7 is very closely associated with a Homeric encounter between mortals, that is, Odysseus’ (disguised as a beggar) and Eumaeus’ with the goatherd Melanthius in the Odyssey.629 This point supports the idea that Lycidas’ figure combines both mortal and divine characteristics, the latter associated with more than one deity of poetry and the countryside;630 thus Lycidas is most likely not meant to be identified with any specific figure from the mortal or the divine world, but rather functions as a symbol of the ‘ideal’ bucolic poet.631

generally associated with Philitas. However, there is no proof that Philitas composed bucolic poetry; see Lohse (1966), 420. 628 On Lycidas’ divine characteristics, see Puelma (1960), 148-150; Cameron (1963), 291-307; Arnott (1984), 339; Pearce (1988), 277-287; Hunter (1999), 147. There is a closer similarity with the encounter between Athena and Odysseus in Od. 13.229-440; see Hunter (1999), 147. On the resemblance with Homeric encounter scenes in general, see e.g. Puelma (1960), 147-148 with n. 13, 14; Cameron (1963); Luck (1966); Serrao (1971), 17-19; Williams (1978); Pearce (1988), 278-283. Note also that the ἐῴκει in Id. 7.14 is a verb commonly used in Homeric scenes where a god is in disguise; see Hunter (1999), 156. See also Clauss’ (1990), 130-133, suggestion that Id. 7.35 (ἀλλ’ ἄγε δή, ξυνὰ γὰρ ὁδὸς ξυνὰ δὲ καὶ ἀώς) is modelled on Hes. Cat. fr. 1.6-7 M.-W.: Ξυναὶ γὰρ τότε δαῖτες ἔσαν, ξυνοὶ δὲ θόωκοι ἀθανάτοις τε θεοῖσι καταθνητοῖς τ’ ἀνθρώποις. The Hesiodic passage refers to the time when gods and humans shared common banquets and seats, thus the adaptation of the verse in Theocritus may allude to the divine nature of Lycidas. 629 Od. 17.182-261. See Ott (1972), 144-149; Halperin (1983), 224-227; Griffin (1992), 194-195; Hunter (1999), 147-148. The close association between the two passages is evident in the similarities of the site as well (spring, poplars, altar of the Nymphs). Halperin notes that the exchange of insults in the Odyssey is transformed into a singing competition in Theocritus. 630 Hunter (1999), 148-149, argues that Lycidas may be viewed as a divinity combining different elements destined to preside over bucolic poetry. Bowie (1985), 70, argues that Lycidas’ name is suggestive for his association with Apollo, that is, his ability in song and poetry, regardless of his identification with Apollo or not. 631 Cf. Segal (1981), 114: ‘a symbol might have several related and interconnected meanings. There is no contradiction in regarding Lycidas as a god, as an aspect of Theocritus’ poetic personality or as a symbol of bucolic inspiration in general’. See also Goldhill (1991), 228-229; Morrison (2007), 265- 266, who suggest that the mystery surrounding Lycidas’ identity is directly related to the fact that

137

As mentioned above, many of the attempts to identify Lycidas with a certain person or deity were depended upon the interpretation of the encounter scene as a scene of poetic investiture. Van Groningen was the first to suggest the resemblance of the Simichidas and Lycidas encounter in Idyll 7 with that of Hesiod and the Muses in the proem of the Theogony on the basis of the numerous common elements in the two texts.632 To begin with, in both stories the setting is bucolic: Hesiod was tending his sheep under Mt. Helicon when the Muses appeared (v. 23), while Simichidas has just left the city and is heading to a rustic celebration in the countryside (v. 2-3), when ‘thanks to the Muses’633 he meets Lycidas (v. 12).634 Secondly, the first address of the Muses to Hesiod has an abusive tone: ‘shepherds of the wilderness, shameful things, mere bellies’,635 which corresponds to Lycidas’ mocking smile (v. 20)636 and his question regarding Simichidas’ destination ‘is it a feast that you are rushing to uninvited (v. 24-26)?’, implying that he resembles a parasite who attends banquets uninvited.637 Thirdly, the Muses in the Theogony announce that they know how to speak both true and false things as if they were true, offer Hesiod a laurel staff and bestow on him the ability to sing;638 similarly, in Idyll 7 Lycidas offers Simichidas a

there is no objective external narrator in the poem; indeed the narrator Simichidas is a character in the Idyll and thus everything in the poem is presented from his own, subjective perspective. 632 Van Groningen (1959). 633 Hunter (1999), 156, ‘because the meeting will lead to an exchange of song’. 634 It has been argued that the beginning of Idyll 7 and the setting in the countryside is modelled on Plato’s Phaedrus. On this and the correspondences with other Platonic dialogues, see Hunter (1999), 145; Payne (2007), 118. 635 Hes. Theog. 26: ‘ποιμένες ἄγραυλοι, κάκ’ ἐλέγχεα, γαστέρες οἶον’. 636 See Hunter (1999), 157. 637 See Hunter (1999), 158-159. Cf. Od. 17.220: πτωχὸν ἀνιηρόν, δαιτῶν ἀπολυμαντῆρα; (Melantheus to Odysseus). 638 Hes. Theog. 27-34: ‘ἴδμεν ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγειν ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα, ἴδμεν δ’ εὖτ’ ἐθέλωμεν ἀληθέα γηρύσασθαι’. ὣς ἔφασαν κοῦραι μεγάλου Διὸς ἀρτιέπειαι, καί μοι σκῆπτρον ἔδον δάφνης ἐριθηλέος ὄζον 30 δρέψασαι, θηητόν· ἐνέπνευσαν δέ μοι αὐδὴν θέσπιν, ἵνα κλείοιμι τά τ’ ἐσσόμενα πρό τ’ ἐόντα,

138 crooked staff (which he later calls a ‘mark of xenia arising from the Muses’),639 justifying his action by saying that Simichidas is ‘a sapling all fashioned by Zeus with a view to truth’ and begins his song.640 Crookedness is traditionally associated with untruthfulness and deception, whereas πεπλασμένον has notions of artificiality and fiction.641 Lycidas’ likening of Simichidas with the young plant has been thought to be his ironic reply to Simichidas’ assertion that he considers himself an equally good singer as Lycidas and his supposedly modest claim of being an inferior poet to

Philitas and Sicelidas in the previous lines; thus, Lycidas’ gift of the crooked-false club is an indication of Lycidas’ recognition of the untruthfulness of Simichidas’ words.642 Another detail which has been proposed as a point of contact between the two texts is the time of the day that the encounter takes place: in Theocritus it happens at midday (v. 21: μεσαμέριον) and, while in Hesiod’s account the time of the encounter is not specified,643 a Hellenistic epigram referring to the episode in the

Theogony places its time at midday.644 Midday is commonly viewed as the typical time of the day when epiphanies happen.645

καί μ’ ἐκέλονθ’ ὑμνεῖν μακάρων γένος αἰὲν ἐόντων, σφᾶς δ’ αὐτὰς πρῶτόν τε καὶ ὕστατον αἰὲν ἀείδειν. 639 On κορύναν (in v. 128 called λαγωβόλον) as a short crooked stick, see Hunter (1999), 157. On the gift from the Muses, see Id. 7.128-129: Τόσσ’ ἐφάμαν· ὃ δέ μοι τὸ λαγωβόλον, ἁδὺ γελάσσας ὡς πάρος, ἐκ Μοισᾶν ξεινήιον ὤπασεν ἦμεν. The translation of the phrase is by Hunter (1999), 190. 640 Id. 7.43-44: ‘τάν τοι’, ἔφα, ‘κορύναν δωρύττομαι, οὕνεκεν ἐσσί πᾶν ἐπ’ ἀλαθείᾳ πεπλασμένον ἐκ Διὸς ἔρνος. The (adapted) translation is by Hunter (1999), 163. 641 See Segal (1974b); (1981), 170-171; Goldhill (1991), 232; Hunter (1999), 163. 642 Gutzwiller (1991), 165-166; Hunter (1999), 163-164. Contra, Gow (1952), II 142, takes it to be a sign of Lycidas’ recognition of Simichidas’ honesty (he understands ἐπ’ ἀλαθείᾳ πεπλασμένον as meaning ‘fashioned all for truth’, thus both Simichidas and the crook as being ‘unblemished’). Similarly, Hutchinson (1988), 202. 643 Hunter (1999), 158. Pearce (1988), 283, argues that that Hesiod’s encounter with the Muses took place at night, based on the reference to their descent from Helicon at night. 644 Anth. Pal. 9.64.1. See below, p. 143. 645 Kambylis (1965), 60.

139

An important difference between the two texts is that Simichidas is already a poet when he meets Lycidas,646 while Hesiod becomes a poet once he is appointed as such by the Muses and receives instructions and reassurances on the topic of his song. This point has been considered as problematic, as it renders Simichidas’ poetic initiation pointless. Hunter has interpreted it within the framework of the ‘irony’ of bucolic tradition, which he understands as the contradiction between the composition of bucolic song and the lack of true knowledge of the countryside and real bucolic world.647 This interpretation presupposes that Lycidas is the ‘guarantor’ of the bucolic genre who eventually enables Simichidas to sing a ‘real’ bucolic song, exemplified in the description of the locus amoenus at the end of Idyll 7.648 His position as an emblematic figure of bucolic poetry is reflected also in his song, where he presents two mythical examples of bucolic poets, that is, Daphnis and Comatas.649

Thus, the entire Idyll may be seen as a ‘bucolicised’ version of the standard Hesiodic scene, in that crucial elements are substituted with corresponding bucolic ones.650 For instance, the spring Burina mentioned at the beginning of the Idyll is the bucolic counterpart of the spring Hippocrene on Mt. Helicon where the Muses bathe in the

Theogony (v. 6), as their speaking names indicate: Burina is the spring of the ox

(βοῦς), Hippocrene is the spring of the horse (ἵππου κρήνη).651 Furthermore, both springs have been created by similar means, that is, Burina by a blow of Chalcon’s foot or knee,652 while Hippocrene by the blow of Pegasus’ hoof, according to one

646 See his claims in Id. 7.37-41. 647 Hunter (1999), 149-150. 648 Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004), 3-4, 137. 649 Id. 7.73-77, 78-89 respectively. See Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 136. 650 Hunter (1999), 154. Cf. Arnott’s (1996), view on Theocritus ‘demythologisation’ of the scene in Hesiod by replacing the divine agent with a humble human. 651 Lawall (1967), 78, 106; Krevans (1983), 208-212; Hunter (1996), 24. 652 See Hunter (1999), 154, for the various views regarding the appearance of the spring.

140 account.653 Finally, the laurel staff as a gift-symbol of the poet is replaced by the bucolic λαγωβόλον, while Hesiod’s Muses are replaced by the rustic Nymphs (v. 91-

92), whose presence is more appropriate in a bucolic context.654

It is worth noting that Theocritus’ presentation of a poetic investiture in a bucolic setting is not without parallel, as Archilochus’ encounter with the Muses described in an inscription from Paros (middle of the third century BC) is placed in a similar setting.655 According to this account, the poet was sent by his father to the city to sell a cow and on his way met a group of women whom he teased; they responded with mocking and laughing and in the end left, leaving him a lyre in the place of the cow.656 Sometime later Archilochus realised that the women were the

Muses, while an oracle from Delphi confirmed his future success as a poet.657 Apart from the bucolic setting, Theocritus’ account of the encounter shares with this story the element of mocking and laughing.

Callimachus also included a scene of his own poetic initiation by the Muses in the beginning of the Aetia, following the reply to the Telchines,658 which may be viewed as parallel to the bucolic poetic investiture in Idyll 7. It is preserved in very fragmentary form,659 but its content is deduced based on the scholia and later

653 Arat. Phaen. 216-223. 654 Hunter (1999), 178. On nymphs and bucolic song, see also Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 153-154. 655 Hunter (1999), 150. On the inscription and Archilochus’ initiation in general, see Kambylis (1963). 656 SEG 15.517.22-35: λέγουσι γὰρ Ἀρχίλοχον ἔτι νεώτερον ὄντα πεμφθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς Τελεσικλέους εἰς ἀγρόν, εἰς τὸν δῆμον, ὃς καλεῖται Λειμῶνες, ὥ στε βοῦν καταγαγεῖν εἰς πρᾶσιν, ἀναστάντα πρωίτερον τῆς νυκτός, σελήνης λαμπούσης, ἄγειν τὴμ βοῦν εἰς πόλιν. ὡς δ’ ἐγένετο κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ὃς καλεῖται Λισσίδες, δόξαι γυναῖκας ἰδεῖν ἀθρόας. νομίσαντα δ’ ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων ἀπιέναι αὐτὰς εἰς πόλιν προσελθόντα σκώπτειν, τὰς δὲ δέξασθαι αὐτὸν μετὰ παιδιᾶς καὶ γέλωτος καὶ ἐπερωτῆσαι, εἰ πωλήσων ἄγει τῆμ βοῦν· φήσαντος δὲ εἰπεῖν, ὅτι αὐταὶ δώσουσιν αὐτῶι τιμὴν ἀξίαν. ῥηθέντων δὲ τούτων αὐτὰς μὲν οὐδὲ τὴμ βοῦν οὐκέτι φανερὰς εἶναι, πρὸ τῶν ποδῶν δὲ λύραν ὁρᾶν αὑτόν. 657 SEG 15.517-36-52. 658 On the sequence of the prologue and the dream, see Harder (2012), II 96-98. On the Callimachus ‘dream’, see Reitzenstein (1931), 52-69; Kambylis (1965), 69123; Benedetto (1993); Massimilla (1996), 233-237; Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2002), 253. 659 Fr. 2 Pf. (= fr. 2 Harder = fr. 4 Mass.).

141 epigrams. The surviving verses describe Hesiod’s encounter with the Muses on Mt.

Helicon, thus revealing Callimachus’ alignment with and dependence upon the archaic poet for the portrayal of his own poetic investiture. However, Callimachus differentiates his depiction of the Hesiod’s encounter with the Muses by placing it near the spring Hippocrene on Mt. Helicon,660 instead of the foot of Helicon mentioned in the Theogony (v. 23). This alteration has been interpreted as related to

Callimachus’ view regarding the poet’s position towards the Muses: his Hesiod (and probably himself) meeting the Muses at a higher point on the mountain, more specifically at the place where the Muses dance according to the Theogony, implies a more ‘equal’ relationship between the poet and the Muses, as he meets them in their realm.661 This idea is further emphasised in the depiction of Callimachus’ own encounter with the Muses during which Callimachus, instead of being a passive recipient of inspiration, enquired about the aetia of rituals and cults and received answers from the Muses. According to the scholia, this encounter was portrayed in a dream, while an anonymous epigram adds the information that during the dream the poet was transferred from Cyrene to Mt. Helicon.662 There is no reference to the

Muses handing Callimachus a gift corresponding to the laurel branch in the

Theogony, but scholars have suggested that instead of the branch, both Hesiod and

Callimachus may have been portrayed as drinking from Hippocrene.663 These assumptions have been based on an epigram by Asclepiades or Archias which refers to Hesiod’s poetic investiture, as well as on later poems that present both poets

660 Aet. fr. 2.1 Harder (= fr. 2.1 Pf.): ποιμ⌟ένι μῆλα νέμ ⌞οντι παρ’ ἴχνιον ὀξέος ἵππου 661 See Selden (1998), 357; Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 6; Harder (2012), II 93-95. 662 Fr. 2d Harder = (Schol. Flor. Callim. 15-20); Anth. Pal. 7.42 (= T 6 Harder) 663 Thus, Kambylis (1965), 66-67, 98-102; Crowther (1979), 1-11; Serrao (1998), 302-305; Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 6-7. Contra, Cameron (1995), 127-132.

142 drinking water;664 nonetheless, this possibility cannot be confirmed on the basis of the remains of fr. 2 Pf. (=fr. 2 Harder). A similar conjecture has been articulated regarding the time of day that Callimachus portrays his and Hesiod’s poetic investitures: on the basis of later accounts such as the epigram of Asclepiades or

Archias, it has been argued that it took place at midday.665

If indeed Callimachus portrayed the two poetic investitures in this way, that would mean that he shares with Theocritus certain elements that differentiate their versions from the traditional one in the Theogony, such as the setting near the spring, the dialogue form of the encounter and, perhaps, the presence of water and the time of the day. Such a parallelism brings Simichidas’ and Lycidas’ encounter closer to a scene of poetic initiation, especially if, as it has been argued, both Callimachus’ and

Theocritus’ passages and their deviation from Hesiod are modelled on Philitas’

Demeter.666 This notion will be discussed further down within the framework of the relationship between Idyll 7 and Demeter.

Scholars have assumed that there are more allusions to Callimachus in Idyll 7, primarily in what was taken to be programmatic statements on the part of Theocritus.

These are placed in the mouths of both Simichidas and Lycidas and have been viewed as representing Theocritus’ own ideas about contemporary poetry. More specifically, Simichidas first claims that although everyone considers him the best poet, he nevertheless thinks that he is inferior compared to Asclepiades (Sicelidas) and Philitas and that in contesting them he resembles a frog vying against

664 Anth. Pal. 9.64. Other poems where Hesiod is presented as drinking from the Hippocrene are: Alc. Anth. Pal. 7.55; Antip. Thess. Anth. Pal. 11.24. 665 Reitzenstein (1931), 55; Kleinknecht (1975), 245-246; Müller (1987), 55-56 n. 178; Heath (1988), 83 with n. 42; Hunter (1989), 2. 666 The differentiations in the scene of poetic investiture have been attributed to Philitas by Müller (1987), 55 n. 177; Spanoudakis (2002), 226-227, 248-251. Kambylis (1965), 66-67, 94, 102-104, attributes them to Callimachus himself.

143 grasshoppers.667 As mentioned above, this statement of Simichidas has been considered by some scholars as a proof of his false modesty, revealed by the ἐπίταδες in v. 42 denoting that he has spoken ‘with a purpose’.668 This attitude provokes

Lycidas’ mocking smile, his promise to offer him a crooked stick and his declaration that he hates the builder who strives to raise his house as high as the peak of Mt.

Oromedon, as well as the cocks of the Muses who struggle with crowing against the bard of Chios, that is, Homer.669 Both images mentioned by Lycidas have been understood as referring to poets who wrongly try to reach Homer and eventually achieve nothing, since they are inferior to him, or more generally, to poets who do not acknowledge their limitations and try to achieve more than they are able to.670

This has been in turn viewed by some scholars as Theocritus’ declaration of his alignment with Callimachean poetics, according to which poetry has to be small and refined, avoiding uncritical imitations of Homer and grand style.671 Overall, although the idea that Simichidas’ and Lycidas’ statements on poetry reflect Theocritus’ own views is very possible,672 these need not be directly associated with the Callimachean

667 Id. 7.37-41. On Sicelidas as another name for Asclepiades, see Gow (1952), II 141; Hunter (1999), 162. Bowie (1985), 78, argues that the mention of Asclepiades may be another allusion to Hesiod’s poetic investiture, as the poem in the Anthologia Palatina mentioned above, p. 143, was ascribed to Asclepiades. However, the poem may be attributed to Archias instead; see Gow and Page (1965), II 149. 668 See Segal (1974b), 130-131. 669 Id. 7.45-48: ὥς μοι καὶ τέκτων μέγ’ ἀπέχθεται ὅστις ἐρευνῇ ἶσον ὄρευς κορυφᾷ τελέσαι δόμον Ὠρομέδοντος, καὶ Μοισᾶν ὄρνιχες ὅσοι ποτὶ Χῖον ἀοιδόν ἀντία κοκκύζοντες ἐτώσια μοχθίζοντι. 670 Cf. Serrao (1971), 43-52, who argues that the essence of the metaphor is that poets must choose the kind of poetry that is more fitting to them. 671 Thus, e.g. Gow (1952), II 144; Lohse (1966), 413-425, who understands it as a parallel to the contrasting images of the ass and the cicada in the Aetia prologue; Asper (1997), 190-193, who notes the parallel with Callim. Ia. 13 (see further down); Hunter (1999), 165; Klooster (2011), 67-68, the latter two with more general observations. 672 Contra, Hutchinson (1988), argues that such implications are absent from Theocritus’ poem, as the passages in question have a function within the narrative of the Idyll and are not in an emblematic position. Similarly, Morrison (2007), 268, is uncertain regarding the programmatic value of v. 45-48 because of the lack of an authoritative voice.

144 poetic program. As noted in the previous chapter, many of the similarities that the two poets share may be traced to their common models, such as the canonical

Homeric epics and the poetry of the nearly contemporary Philitas, or merely

Hellenistic poetics. With regard to the metaphor in Lycidas’ speech for instance, the image of the τέκτων which appears also in the diegesis of Callimachus’ Iamb 13, within the framework of the poet’s defence of his polyeideia (‘nor does anyone find fault with a builder for creating a variety of artefacts’),673 is a traditional motif in

Greek poetry, used as a parallel to the poet.674 Additionally, the image of the cocks of the Muses crowing against the Chian singer allude to a Pindaric passage in which those who do not know many things by nature but are merely learned are likened to crows that chatter in vain against the divine bird of Zeus.675 This has been interpreted as a polemic against Simonides and Bacchylides who tried to vie with the eagle of

Pindar and is in line with the traditional use of bird metaphors in discussions of poetry;676 thus Theocritus appears once more to have adopted a well-known literary motif for his own purposes.

Another point in Idyll 7 which has been interpreted within the framework of

Callimachean poetics is the verb ἐξεπόνασα used by Lycidas to denote the act of composing his song. The implications of this particular verb are related to the idea of

673 Callim. Ia. 13 Dieg. IX 37-38: ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὸν τέκτονά τις μέμφεται πολυειδῆ σκεύη τεκταινόμενον. The text and translation are by Acosta-Hughes (2002), 68-69. Theocritus’ passage has also been associated with Erysichthon’s intention to build a banquet hall; see McKay (1962b), 77-78; Asper (1997), 190-193, 197-198 with n. 281; Ambühl (2005), 201-202. 674 See Nünlist (1998), 101-102 for examples. 675 Pind. Ol. 2.85-88: σοφὸς ὁ πολλὰ εἰδὼς φυᾷ· μαθόντες δὲ λάβροι παγγλωσσίᾳ κόρακες ὣς ἄκραντα γαρυέτων Διὸς πρὸς ὄρνιχα θεῖον· See Gow (1952), II 144; Cozzoli (1996), 16-22; Hunter (1999), 165-166. 676 On bird metaphors, see Steiner (2007).

145 toil, effort and craftsmanship involved in the procedure of poetic creation which results in a highly refined work.677 This idea is shared by Callimachus and Philitas and its prominence is evident in many of the former’s programmatic passages (such as the epilogue of his Hymn to Apollo mentioned above), while in Philitas’ case, it is exemplified in a poem classified among his Paignia, where an alder tree wishes that someone who toils and knows the ‘marshalling of words’ and ‘the pathways of all forms of speech’ will snatch it from the mountains instead of a rustic man.678 Several alternative interpretations of the word κλήθρη designating the alder tree have been proposed: the poet’s staff, a writing tablet, the title of a poem of Philitas, a symbol of his poetry in general, a woman who prefers a poet over a rustic man.679 Nevertheless, the common idea in all interpretations is that the erudite and refined poet is praised against a rustic man. This view of poetic composition presupposes that it is done ‘on paper’, as opposed to the oral creation of song. According to Hunter, the verb

ἐξεπόνασα points to the ambiguous quality of Theocritus’ poetry, as ‘bucolic poetry might be thought to demand impromptu improvisation, but Lycidas knows better than that’.680

On the basis of my analysis in the previous chapter, the reference to poetry as toil is not the only point that associates Idyll 7 with Philitas’ poetry.681 He is apparently mentioned by name and in a positive light in Simichidas’ speech, i.e. as a

677 Gow (1952), II 145. On the idea of πόνος in Theocritus, see Berger (1984), 19-20. 678 Fr. 25 Sp. (= fr. 10 CA): Οὔ μέ τις ἐξ ὀρέων ἀποφώλιος ἀγροιώτης αἱρήσει κλήθρην, αἰρόμενος μακέλην· ἀλλ’ ἐπέων εἰδὼς κόσμον καὶ πολλὰ μογήσας μύθων παντοίων οἶμον ἐπιστάμενος. The translation is by Lightfoot (2009), 43 (fr. 8). 679 For an overview of the different readings of the passage, see Spanoudakis (2002), 318-322. 680 Hunter (1999), 166. Cf. Goldhill (1991), 233. 681 Note that the verb ἐξεπόνασα appears also in v. 85 (κηρία φερβόμενος ἔτος ὥριον ἐξεπόνασας), that is, in a verse which alludes to Philitas with the ἔτος ὥριον. See Chapter 4.

146 model difficult to reach – regardless of Simichidas’ false modesty. This reference may also function as a pointer to Theocritus’ debt to Philitas’ Demeter, which has been established in the previous chapters. Nonetheless, apart from the correspondences in mythological and religious background, setting and wording,

Idyll 7 reflects Philitas’ Demeter in further respects. According to Spanoudakis’ reconstruction of Demeter’s content, Demeter met Chalcon on Cos and led him to the spring Burina. Likewise, the meeting of Simichidas and Lycidas takes place right after the mention of the spring Burina; thus, according to Spanoudakis, the whole encounter scene in Theocritus’ poem may be modelled on Chalcon’s and Demeter’s meeting in Philitas’ Demeter, which was possibly modelled on the encounter scene of Odysseus and Eumaeus in the Odyssey (Od. 17.212-213), whose connection with

Idyll 7 has been mentioned above.682 Spanoudakis compiled a comprehensive list of possible allusions to Demeter in Idyll 7, but the majority of them appear too speculative as, in my view, it is difficult to draw specific parallels without having much of the actual text to compare with.683

However, his suggestion regarding Lycidas’ similarity with the character of

Demeter in Philitas’ poem seems appealing, especially when taking into consideration Lycidas’ relationship with Demeter’s physical appearance in the same poem and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter.684 With regard to the latter, Lycidas is said to come from Cydonia, which is another name for Crete,685 that is, the place of origin of Demeter disguised as an old woman in the Homeric hymn (v. 13).686

682 Spanoudakis (2002), 249250. 683 See Spanoudakis (2002), 244-273. 684 Cf. Edquist (1975), 28-30, who argues that both Simichidas and Lycidas are associated with Demeter, Lycidas through his appearance and his song. 685 See Gow (1952), II 135. 686 Spanoudakis (2002), 227.

147

Furthermore, Lycidas shares common elements with the Demeter of the Homeric hymn in appearance:687 they both wear a garment on their shoulders,688 while the skin that Lycidas wears has a tawny smell (v. 15-16), which is, according to Hunter, a ‘humorous variation’ of the smell of deities when they appear to mortals, such as

Demeter’s smell in the Homeric hymn (277-278).689 Moreover, he is wearing a peplos just like Demeter in the Homeric hymn; in addition, the goddess is called

εὔπεπλος by Simichidas in Id. 7.32.690

A more important point of contact, however, is to be found in the description of Lycidas’ and Demeter’s smiles: Lycidas in response to Simichidas’ claims and invitation to song ‘slightly smiled and with a smiling eye spoke to me and laughter hung around his lips’,691 while Demeter as a reaction to Iambe’s jesting ‘smiled, laughed and lifted her spirits in benevolence’.692 In Demeter’s case, the threefold reference aims at presenting a state progressing from smile to laughter to complete joy, while Lycidas’ description points to a nearly steady condition, marked by

687 All the following points regarding Lycidas’ and Demeter’s appearance are mentioned by Spanoudakis (2000), 227-228. 688 Id. 7.15-16: κνακὸν δέρμ’ ὤμοισι νέας ταμίσοιο ποτόσδον ~ Hymn. Hom. Cer. 42: κυάνεον δὲ κάλυμμα κατ’ ἀμφοτέρων βάλετ’ ὤμων. 689 Id. 7.16 (see note above) ~ Hymn. Hom. Cer. 277-278: ὀδμὴ δ’ ἱμερόεσσα θυηέντων ἀπὸ πέπλων σκίδνατο, τῆλε δὲ φέγγος ἀπὸ χροὸς ἀθανάτοιο. See Hunter (1999), 157. 690 Id. 7.1718: ἀμφὶ δέ οἱ στήθεσσι γέρων ἐσφίγγετο πέπλος ζωστῆρι πλακερῷ, ῥοικὰν δ’ ἔχεν ἀγριελαίω. ~ Hymn. Hom. Cer. 182-183: στεῖχε κατὰ κρῆθεν κεκαλυμμένη, ἀμφὶ δὲ πέπλος κυάνεος ῥαδινοῖσι θεᾶς ἐλελίζετο ποσσίν. On the peplos, see Gow (1952), II 137; Hunter (1999), 157. 691 Id. 7.19-20: καί μ’ ἀτρέμας εἶπε σεσαρώς ὄμματι μειδιόωντι, γέλως δέ οἱ εἴχετο χείλευς· Cf. Gow (1952), II 137 and Puelma (1960), 148-150, who note the similarity with Dionysus’ smiling eyes in Hymn. Hom. Bacch. 14-15. 692 Hymn. Hom. Cer. 204: μειδῆσαι γελάσαι τε καὶ ἵλαον σχεῖν θυμόν.

148 something between a smile and a laugh.693 This presentation is possibly dependent on

Lycidas’ general ‘ironic’ stance, which combines a notion of superiority and friendly mocking, evident also in his second smile right after Simichidas ends his song.694

Lycidas’ smile corresponds also to Demeter’s smile at the end of the poem, a notion which will be explained below.695

Before that, it is useful to present another interesting suggestion by

Spanoudakis according to which Lycidas’ song evokes Demeter’s experience at the banquet in Chalcon’s palace.696 Lycidas, like Demeter, will lose a beloved person of his, i.e. Ageanax, and, in order to soothe his pain, will attend a feast where he will put garlands on his head, drink wine, eat beans and listen to the songs of two shepherds. These songs will have a consolatory character: Daphnis’ story as an example of greater suffering and Comatas’ as a story where troubles are overcome.697

The story of the goatherd Comatas in particular bears some similarities with

Persephone’s: in the same way as she is snatched away and ‘placed’ in the underworld by Hades, Comatas is put in a coffer because of some king’s malice, but survives a spring through being fed on honey by bees, as Persephone was led back to earth in spring.698 Moreover, Lycidas’ wish that Comatas were alive so that he would herd his goats and listen to his voice may evoke a corresponding wish of Demeter for

693 Halliwell (2008), 521. 694 Id. 7.127: Τόσσ’ ἐφάμαν· ὃ δέ μοι τὸ λαγωβόλον, ἁδὺ γελάσσας. See Hunter 1999), 163. On Lycidas’ laughter as laughter at someone’s misfortunes, see Cameron (1995), 412-415. 695 Another interpretation which takes the irony idea even further understands the poetic investiture scene as a parody where Lycidas mocks Simichidas for trying to be a rustic; see e.g. Giangrande (1968); Segal (1974b); Hatzikosta (1982). 696 Spanoudakis (2002), 252-258. Here I present only the more credible, in my view, correspondences between the two poems. For bibliography on the two songs, see e.g. Hunter (2003a), 225 n. 32. 697 Hunter (1999), 173. 698 Cf. Edquist (1975), 29-30, who compares Comatas’ confinement in the coffin and his resurrection with the death and resurrection of the Great Mother, an allegory of the resurrection of nature and life.

149

Persephone.699 Furthermore, the scene of Lycidas drinking wine from his cup while remembering Ageanax may recall Demeter breaking her fast at the feast, although in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter the goddess refuses to drink wine, a drink that was also generally absent from her rituals;700 the same applies to the beans that Lycidas eats, as their consumption was forbidden at the Eleusinian mysteries. Spanoudakis explains this paradox by assuming that in Philitas’ poem these commodities were a part of the banquet in spite of Demeter’s dispising of them, as a sign of the ‘lean times the Coans might have indulged’.701 Overall, Spanoudakis argues that most of the joyful motifs in Lycidas’ song, such as the garlands, the wine, the στιβάς, etc., may be transformed into funerary ones and as such facilitate Lycidas’ association with Demeter. This suggestion, despite being widely speculative, may have some truth in it.

With regard to Simichidas’ song, Spanoudakis argues that it may evoke the poetry of Asclepiades in the same way as Lycidas’ evokes Philitas’ Demeter,702 but he does not discuss its relationship with Lycidas’ song in terms of its Philitan echoes, if these were such as he assumed. Simichidas’ song opens with his contrasting of his own love for Myrto with the love of his friend Aratus, who, however, receives no response. He then addresses a prayer to Pan to lead Philinus into Aratus’ arms, or else he will suffer a certain punishment: either Arcadian boys will flog him with squills, or he will be bitten and scratch himself all over, or he will sleep among nettles and herd his flock in the northern end of the world in winter and in the hot southern end in the summer. He subsequently turns to his friend and tells him that

699 Id. 7.86-87. 700 See p. 99 n. 470. 701 Spanoudakis (2002), 255. 702 Spanoudakis (2002), 260. Cf. Krevans (1983), 216.

150

Philinus is not worth his suffering, as his youth and beauty are leaving him, thus he has to cease his love and pain and pursue tranquillity.

Scholars have argued that Simichidas’ song reworks the same topic as

Lycidas’, that is, release from love, but does so in a different manner: the subject who suffers is not himself but a friend of his, while the motifs and diction he employs are ‘lowly’, ‘comic’ and ‘plain’ compared to the ‘high’ style and imagery of

Lycidas’ song.703 More specifically, it has been observed that Simichidas’ song recalls iambic poetry because of its jocular character, the inclusion of many obscure proper names and the use of invective.704 There is also a direct link with two specific iambic passages; first, the threats to Pan (v. 106-114) are thought to be modelled on a fragment of Hipponax (fr. 6 West) where someone is threatened with being exposed to cold and flogged with squills:

βάλλοντες ἐν χειμῶνι καὶ ῥαπίζοντες

κράδηισι καὶ σκίλληισιν ὥσπερ φαρμακόν.

Gow notes that Simichidas’ reference to the flogging of Pan recalls the beating with squills of the φαρμακοί at the Thargelia, the same occasion to which Hipponax’ passage refers, as well as the ritual of the βουλίμου ἐξέλασις at Chaeronea,705 while it resembles magical texts with similar content.706 Secondly, Simichidas’ invective against Philinus, i.e. that he is ‘riper than a pear’ and ‘his fair bloom is falling’ from him,707 is modelled on a passage of Archilochus (fr. 196a.16-19 West), where

Neobule is called ‘ripe’, since ‘her maiden flower is withered’:708

703 On the differences in style of the two songs, see Hunter (20003a), 225-229. On their parallelism of topics, see Winter (1974), 72; Krevans (1983), 217-218. 704 Hunter (2003a), 228. 705 Gow (1952), II 158. On the ritual, see Plut. Mor. 693e. See also Chapter 6. 706 See Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 158. 707 Id. 7.120-121:

151

τὸ δὴ νῦν γνῶθι· Νεοβού λη[

ἄ]λλος ἀνὴρ ἐχέτω·

< >αἰαῖ πέπειρα δ[

ἄν]θος δ’ ἀπερρύηκε παρθενήιον

κ]α ὶ χάρις ἣ πρὶν ἐπῆν.

The similarities in wording between the two passages are striking; these point to a careful reworking of the Archilochean passage on the part of Theocritus. Krevans argues that by alluding to archaic iambic poetry, Simichidas ‘reminds us that a tradition of humorous invective, alien to the idealism and nostalgia of Lycidas, is also part of the world of the past which Lycidas has summoned’ in his own song.709

Apart from this, it is worth recalling that iambic poetry and invective were associated with the figure of Iambe and her role in the myth of Demeter. I would argue that this is of particular importance when considering the context in which Simichidas’ song appears, since, if Lycidas in his song is indeed the counterpart of Demeter in Philitas’

Demeter (and through it the Homeric Hymn to Demeter), the tone of Simichidas’ song would in turn correspond to the humorous or mocking intervention of Iambe in the Homeric hymn (and Philicus’ hymn) or of her counterpart, if there was one, in

Philitas’ Demeter. As noted in the previous chapter, Iambe is associated with the mocking and joking taking place during most of Demeter’s rituals; considering that the framework of Lycidas’ and Simichidas’ encounter and exchange of song is a

Demeter festival, it is not surprising to find such elements in the core of the poem. In support of this view, Simichidas’ song is followed by Lycidas’ smile or laughter,

καὶ δὴ μὰν ἀπίοιο πεπαίτερος, αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες, ‘αἰαῖ’, φαντί, ‘Φιλῖνε, τό τοι καλὸν ἄνθος ἀπορρεῖ’. 708 For a detailed comparison of the two passages, see Henrichs (1980), 14-27. 709 Krevans (1983), 218.

152 which is then reflected in Demeter’s smile at the Thalysia. Certainly, this is not to suggest that Theocritus in Idyll 7 reconstructs the traditional story of Demeter at

Eleusis or its adaptation by Philitas, although the relationship with the latter poem in structure and content may be more important than we are now able to assume; the association of Idyll 7 with the Demeter myth and its cultic implications is rather more general but may shed some light on specific details which have been considered as odd or difficult to explain, such as the song of Simichidas, Lycidas’ smile flanking the encounter scene and Demeter’s smile at the end.

This notion leads us to the question of the meaning of the harvest festival and the role of Demeter in Idyll 7. Several suggestions have been articulated regarding the symbolism of the harvest festival and by implication the poem as a whole. Some of these analyses were based on the description of the grove and its relation to the grove created around Burina mentioned in the beginning of the poem. Most scholars considered them as identical, while some attributed the elaborate and elevated style of the second description to the effect of Simichidas’ encounter with Lycidas.710 The grove has been viewed as a place of poetic inspiration, while its components have been interpreted as symbols of poetry. The invocation of the Castalian Nymphs of

Parnassus in particular, identified with, related to or considered as the bucolic counterpart of the Muses, constitutes an attestation of the poetological importance of the final part.711 The bees and the cicadas have also been interpreted as signs to that

710 Hutchinson (1988), 209-212, argues that in the last part of Idyll 7 the activity of the poet Theocritus is in the foreground and that the purpose of the difference in poetic quality is to indicate his superiority compared to the two songs previously presented by Lycidas and Simichidas. See also chapter 4. 711 On the Castalian Nymphs as the bucolic counterpart of the Muses, see p. 141. For the view that they are identified with the Muses, see e.g. Puelma (1960), 156; Krevans (1983), 205. For the view of the Castalian Nymphs of Parnassus as recalling the Muses, see Hutchinson (1988), 212. On the association of the Muses with nymphs in general, see West (1966), 154-155 on Theog. 7; Larson (2001). 7-8; Depew (2007), 144.

153 the grove is a poetic grove, as both are traditional symbols of poets, while the motif of the spring which flanks Idyll 7 has been understood as representing the source of poetic inspiration. Much discussion has centred on the implications of wine and water and the presence of both in the ending of the poem in particular: since these two have been traditionally viewed as representing two different modes of poetic inspiration and composition, that is, wine as a symbol of divine and spontaneous inspiration and water embodying the sober craftsmanship of the poet, the mixing of wine with the water of the spring by the Nymphs and their offering them to the narrator and his friends at the festival of Demeter have been thought of as symbolising the combination of the two manners of composing poetry as well as the blending of sources.712 Furthermore, the reference to the mythological examples of

Polyphemus and Heracles with Centaurs has been considered as a means by which the celebration of the Thalysia is transferred to a ‘mythical’ level, in parallel to the

‘mythicised’ description of the grove.713

Lawall understood all the aforementioned elements of the harvest festival as representing the poems of Theocritus’ Coan collection (Idylls 1-7) and thus considered the harvest of fruit as a symbol of the harvest of poems and Simichidas’ journey as an allegory of Theocritus’ journey as an accomplished poet.714 A similar understanding of the harvest as a poetic one has been proposed by Lassere, who, however, interpreted Idyll 7 as a harvest of epigrams: the poems are symbolised by the cornstalks, the basket where they are placed is the Idyll, the heap of cornstalks is

712 Krevans (1983), 211-212. Cf. Winter (1974), 110, who argues that the emphasis is on the water, while Lawall (1967), 106, argues that wine is the basic source of inspiration, with water being the ‘sobering’ addition. 713 Hunter (1999), 196. 714 Lawall (1967), 3, 74, 101-102.

154 the collection and the poets who offer their poems are the reapers.715 This collection of epigrams, according to Lassere, is the one mentioned in the Homeric scholia with the title Σωρός, which possibly contained epigrams by Posidippus, Asclepiades and

Hedylus and was dedicated to Demeter σωρῖτις, that is, ‘of the heap of corn’.

Spanoudakis revives this view by suggesting that the association of the Σωρός collection with Demeter may be related to Philitas’ poem Demeter; according to his theory, the Σωρός may have been a posthumous publication of epigrams in honour of

Philitas, while Idyll 7 is Theocritus’ analogous tribute to Philitas.716 This is an interesting suggestion, whose plausibility, however, is very difficult to establish, since it is based on a series of conjectures. In my view, it suffices to assume that the association of Demeter with a poetic festival and a scene resembling one of poetic initiation in Idyll 7 is related to her role in Philitas’ Demeter. Relevant to this is

Edquist’s view that the emphasis on the threshing floor, Demeter’s role as ἀλωίς and the mention of the winnowing fan in the end of Idyll 7 allude to the idea of selectivity on a natural and a human level.717 Thus the placing of the winnowing fan on

Demeter’s heap of corn by the narrator, apart from signalling the end of the journey and the completion of the harvest,718 represents his alignment with Demeter and the principles she represents, among them selectivity, productivity and discrimination.719

Edquist explains the implications of Demeter’s figure on the basis of her function as a goddess of agriculture and her link with ‘pastoral otium’.720 I would add that

715 Lassere (1959), 321-330. 716 Spanoudakis (2002), 409-410. 717 Edquist (1975), 27-28. 718 It has been noted that this gesture alludes to Teiresias’ oracle offered to Odysseus, according to which the end of his wanderings would be marked by his placing of an oar in the earth once he finds a man who would think that the oar is a winnowing shovel (Od. 11.119-137); see Segal (1975), 45; Hunter (1999), 199. 719 Edquist (1975), 31. He argues, however, that this notion applies to all of Theocritus’ poems. 720 Edquist (1975), 26-27.

155

Demeter’s symbolism is also depended upon her role in Philitas’ Demeter and her association with motifs that represent qualities such as we have seen in the epilogue of Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo. The notion of selectivity underlies Demeter’s smile at the end as well, since it functions as an affirmation of the narrator’s and his friends’ reception into the group of her worshippers on a first level, and, since the harvest festival may also be seen as a poetic one, into the group of the poets whom she ‘approves’ on a second level.

The opposite picture is presented in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, where the topic is the expulsion of the one who is hateful to the goddess. In the previous chapter I discussed how Theocritus’ Idyll 7 and Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter share several correspondences, centered on the description of their groves and the depiction of the figure of Demeter, which may be explained by their dependence upon Philitas’ Demeter. However, a more general juxtaposition of the poems as wholes demonstrates that similar motifs are treated in a different, sometimes contrasting, manner by each poet. For instance, in Theocritus’ Idyll 7 the prevailing idea is that of ἁσυχία, i.e. tranquillity, reflected in the description of the groves and the smiles of Lycidas and Demeter and presented as the ultimate goal in the songs of

Lycidas and Simichidas. In Callimachus’ hymn, on the other hand, the tranquillity of the festival in the ritual frame and Demeter’s grove in the central narrative is interrupted by the violence of Erysichthon’s sacrilege and the subsequent upsetting caused by his punishment. This opposition is also exemplified in the contrast between Simichidas’ winnowing fan which he is to put on Demeter’s heap of corns in the ending of Idyll 7 and the axe that Erysichthon threatens to fix in Demeter’s – disguised as her priestess – body in the Hymn to Demeter, each leading to the

156 respective reaction of the goddess, that is, an affirmative smile in Theocritus’ poem and expulsion in Callimachus’ hymn.721 The two diverse depictions are understood not only as representing two opposite modes of behaviour in terms of religious piety, but also two different stances towards poetry, considering that Demeter is to be viewed as a poetic symbol and the poems as poetic metaphors.

In the following paragraphs I examine the metapoetical implications of

Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, beginning my analysis with the hymn’s juxtaposition with the preceding poem in the corpus of Callimachus’ Hymns, i.e. the

Hymn to Athena, as it has long been acknowledged that the two hymns are so closely interrelated that they form a complementary poetic pair, thus the understanding of the one presupposes the understanding of the other.722 Most scholars now agree upon the idea that Callimachus’ Hymns were assembled together in a poetry-book, as the hymns’ sequence is identical in all the papyri preserving them,723 while close readings of them demonstrate that they are carefully organised according to specific patterns of contrast, correspondence, juxtaposition and continuation.724 Thus, as

Hopkinson notes, the Hymns’ ‘collection’ consists of a pair of longer poems (Hymns to Artemis and Delos) flanked by two pairs of shorter poems; the first pair is

721 Cf. Ambühl (2005), 199. 722 McKay (1962a), 106-124, esp. 113-117; (1962b), 66-69, first observed that H. 5 and H. 6 reflect a ‘Dorian threnodic elegy’ and a ‘Dorian comedy’ respectively. Hopkinson (1984), 13-17, compiled a thorough list of the correspondences between the two poems. See also Müller (1987), 46-64; Hunter (1992); Hunter and Fuhrer (2002), 157-161, 178-179; Heyworth (2004), 153-157; Van Tress (2004), 178-179. On the chronological relationship between the two poems, see Bulloch (1985), 38-43. 723 See Pfeiffer (1953), II lv-lxxxv; Cameron (1995), 255 n. 91. 724 See e.g. Pfeiffer (1953), II liii; Hopkinson (1984), 13-17; Harder (1992), 394; (2004); Haslam (1993), 115; Cameron (1995), 255, 438-439; Hunter and Fuhrer (2002), 145; Depew (2004), esp. 134- 135; Morrison (2007), 105-106. Contra, Asper (2004), 44-45. On ancient poetry-books, see Van Sickle (1980); Gutzwiller (1998), 5-14; Hutchinson (2008).

157

‘masculine’ (Hymns to Zeus and Apollo), the second ‘mixed’ (Hymns to Artemis and

Delos) and the third ‘feminine’ (Hymns to Athena and Demeter).725

The Hymn to Athena and the Hymn to Demeter in particular are different compared to the first four hymns in that they are composed in the Doric dialect as opposed to the epic ionic of the others, while, as noted above, their distinctive position within the collection is emphasised by the several verbal, structural and thematic correspondences they share. More specifically, the opening parts of the

‘mimetic’ frames of both hymns are uttered by a female narrator who is also portrayed as a participant of a certain ritual that involves a procession of sacred objects (statue of Athena, κάλαθος of Demeter) followed by a group of exclusively female devotees. Furthermore, in both hymns the first part of the frame concludes with warning clauses that introduce cautionary tales; thus, in the Hymn to Athena

Argive men are advised not to look at the goddess while she is bathing, even unwittingly, for if they do, this will result in their death (v. 51-54), while in the Hymn to Demeter people are instructed not to commit ‘transgression’ (ὑπερβασία, v. 22) against the goddess. The warning clause in the Hymn to Athena introduces the corresponding tale of Teiresias’ blinding by Athena after he saw her bathing, while the advice against ὑπερβασία in the Hymn to Demeter serves as the introductory sentence for Erysichthon’s sacrilege against Demeter’s grove and the goddess’ affliction of him with ravenous hunger. The similarities between the stories of

Teiresias and Erysichthon are apparent: both are concerned with an offence committed in a grove at noon by a young man, child of the goddess’ favourite, i.e.

Chariclo in the Hymn to Athena, Triopas in the Hymn to Demeter. Moreover, each

725 Hopkinson (1984), 13.

158 character’s punishment corresponds to his crime: Teiresias’ offence involves viewing and he thus receives the loss of sight as a punishment, while Erysichthon’s motive for the violation of Demeter’s tree is to use the timber for his banquet hall, hence he is granted with raging hunger that no banquets may satiate. Finally, in both stories the cruelty of the punishments is presented through their effect on the offenders’ parents. The correspondences between the two hymns apply to the closing part of the ritual frames as well, since both of them consist of ritual instructions to the celebrants to welcome the sacred objects and the goddess.

The parallelism of the Hymn to Athena and the Hymn to Demeter has been examined from different perspectives and various interpretations have been proposed for their close interrelation.726 Indeed, taking into consideration each poem’s complexity in its own right, their pairing is understandably receptive to more than one interpretation. Nevertheless, as already noted, the succeeding analysis will focus on the metapoetical aspects of the two poems and the way these are interrelated so as to form a pair of poetic metaphors.

I begin with the Hymn to Athena and the mythological tale of Teiresias in the central narrative. Teiresias is presented as a young man who goes hunting on Mt.

Helicon, but, in his search for a spring to quench his thirst, he unwittingly sees his

726 See for instance, McKay (1962a), 115 n. 2, understood H. 5 and 6 as depicting a θεοφιλία and a θεομαχία respectively. Knight (1993), 22- 26, on the other hand, considered the two hymns as belonging to ‘a special sub-set of the hymnal genre’, i.e. the ‘epiphany hymn’, where the mimetic frame functions as the means by which the readers perceive the mythological tale and its moral as if participating in the ritual. For Teiresias’ and Erysichthon’s myths in particular, he considers as prevalent the idea of divine dominance on mortals. Heyworth (2004), 153-157, views the two cautionary tales as representing the two typical modes of mortal offence against a god, that is, unwittingly in Teiresias’ story, with hybris in Erysichthon’s, and associates the two narratives with tragedies treating myths of corresponding character, i.e. Oedipus Rex as an example of unintended offence and Bacchae as an account of hybris. On the basis of this observation, he concludes that Callimachus may have intended to recreate ‘in miniature the experience of a dramatic festival’, especially when taking into account the comic elements in the second part of the Erysichthon story which evoke a satyr play or comedy. Contra, Hopkinson (1988b), 401, understands the pairing of H. 5 and 6 as indicative of Callimachus’ tendency to vary mood and tone.

159 mother Chariclo, Athena’s favourite nymph, and the goddess herself bathing naked in the spring Hippocrene. Athena immediately announces that Teiresias is going to lose his sight and Chariclo protests that this is no mark of friendship on the part of the goddess. Athena then rejoins that it was not her decision to take Teiresias’ eyes, but she is merely following the rule of Cronus which dictates that whatever mortal sees something he is not allowed to see pays a heavy price. She then prophesies the fate of Actaeon as a means of consolation for Chariclo, since his punishment for beholding Artemis in her bath will be his dismemberment by his own hounds.

Teiresias, on the contrary, is to be granted many honours by Athena: he is to become the subject of song, be provided with the ability to understand omens and utter oracles, a staff, long life and the privilege of keeping his understanding in Hades after death.

Blindness and clairvoyance are the basic features of the renowned persona of

Teiresias, known from his appearances both in the Nekyia in the Odyssey and several

Attic tragedies, while his keeping his intelligence after death is an element present in the Homeric epic only.727 The story of Teiresias’ blinding is rendered in two distinct versions before Callimachus. The first and best known tradition is found in the

Hesiodic Melampodia,728 according to which Teiresias, having been both a man and a woman in the past,729 is blinded by Hera when he reveals that women receive more pleasure from sexual intercourse than men; however, he is compensated by Zeus with the gifts of clairvoyance and long life. The least known version is recorded by the fifth-century Athenian mythographer Pherecydes according to whom Teiresias lost

727 Od. 10.493-495. On Teiresias in general, see Brisson (1976); Fontenrose (1981), 120-130; Ugolini (1995). 728 Hes. fr. 275 M.-W. Cf. Ov. Met. 3.316-338. See Brisson (1976), 12-21; Ugolini (1995), 33-56. 729 According to this myth, Teiresias turned from a man into a woman when he saw two snakes copulating and returned to his initial sex when he saw the same snakes copulating again.

160 his sight when he gazed at Athena in her bath; following his mother Chariclo’s request for her son’s eyesight to be restored, the goddess announced that Teiresias would remain blind, but as compensation he would be able to hear omens and be given a staff to walk like those who can see.730 Callimachus in his narration of

Teiresias’ blinding apparently adopts Pherecydes’ version, contaminating it though with elements from other texts.731

As an important intertext of Teiresias’ narrative in Callimachus’ hymn has been proposed the proem of Hesiod’s Theogony. More specifically, the close resemblance of the description of Teiresias’ blinding and his acquiring of the gift of prophecy to the scene of Hesiod’s poetic investiture has led scholars to argue that

Callimachus intended his narrative to be read as a tale of poetic initiation.732 This is made explicit in the placing of Teiresias’ blinding on Mt. Helicon, the place where

Hesiod encountered the Muses in the Theogony and with which Teiresias is never linked before Callimachus,733 as well as in Athena’s and Chariclo’s depiction bathing in the spring Hippocrene just like the Muses at the beginning of the Theogony (v. 5-

6).734 Athena offering a staff to Teiresias (H. 5.127) may be viewed as corresponding to the Muses giving a laurel staff to Hesiod, while their bestowing of ‘the divine

730 Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 92: Φερεκύδης δὲ ὑπὸ ᾽Αθηνᾶς αὐτὸν τυφλωθῆναι. οὖσαν γὰρ τὴν Χαρικλὼ προσφιλῆ τῆι ᾽Αθηναῖ γυμνὴν ἐπὶ πάντα ἰδεῖν· τὴν δὲ ταῖς χερσὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ καταλαβομένην πηρὸν ποιῆσαι· Χαρικλοῦς δὲ δεομένης ἀποκαταστῆσαι πάλιν τὰς ὁράσεις μὴ δυναμένην τοῦτο ποιῆσαι τὰς ἀκοὰς διακαθάρασαν πᾶσαν ὀρνίθων φωνὴν ποιῆσαι συνεῖναι, καὶ σκῆπτρον αὐτῶι δωρήσασθαι κράνειον, ὃ φέρων ὁμοίως τοῖς βλέπουσιν ἐβάδιζεν. See Brisson (1976), 21-23; Ugolini (1995), 66-78. 731 See Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1924), II 22-24; Kleinknecht (1975), 238-242; McKay (1962a), 32- 36; Hopkinson (1988), 112. Contra, Bulloch (1985), 17-19, who argues that Callimachus’ model was the Argolica by Agias and Derkylus. 732 See Müller (1987), 55-64; Heath (1988), 81-84; Ambühl (2005), 113-116. 733 In the Melampodia Teiresias’ beholding of the snakes coupling was set on Mt. Cyllene, while according to later accounts of the same story, it took place on Mt. Cithaeron; see Brisson (1976), 65 n. 70; Ugolini (1995), 51. 734 Cf. also the parallelism between the dances of the nymphs under the direction of Chariclo (H. 5.66- 67) and the dances of the Muses on Mt. Helicon around Hippocrene (Theog. 7-8). On the relationship between nymphs and the Muses, see p. 153 with n. 711.

161 power of song’ (v. 31-32) to Hesiod so that he would ‘sing of things that had been and would be, and praise the gods who are forever’ (v. 32-33) may be considered as parallel to Athena’s promise that Teiresias will become the theme of song more than any other seer (v. 121-122) and will have the ability to foretell the future (v. 123-

126).735

Athena thus adopts a double role which is unique in that it extends to powers that are beyond her usual domains, as they are traditionally associated with the

Muses and Apollo.736 Her bestowing of the gift of clairvoyance on Teiresias is reflected in her ‘prophecy’ regarding Actaeon’s fate and the oracular manner in which she presents Teiresias’ gifts,737 while her reference to Teiresias being sung more than any other seer (121-122) may be interpreted on a first level as an affirmation of him becoming a famous seer, but on a second level it may be understood as a proclamation that Teiresias is to become a celebrated literary figure, appearing in many pieces of literature, including Callimachus’s poem itself, Hesiod and tragedy. This notion is additional to the gifts offered to Teiresias as compensation in Pherecydes’ version; it places thus the story in a literary context.738

Furthermore, Teiresias’ privileged status in the underworld (H. 5.129-130) may also be interpreted as alluding to his immortality as a character in poetry.739 Athena’s association with the Muses is possibly adopted from the Theogony, where both

Athena and the Muses are called κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο (v. 13, 25 respectively).740

735 Hes. Theog. 29-35. Cf. Bulloch (1985), 229 on v. 119-136; Müller (1987), 58-59; Heath (1988), 85. 736 Heath (1988), 85. 737 Cf. Hunter (1992), 28. 738 Heath (1988), 84. 739 Ambühl (2005), 109-110. Cf. Heath (1988), 85. 740 Cf. Depew (1994), 410-415; (2004), 128, who argues that Athena adopts the role of an ‘Alexandrian Muse’ in her consolation speech where she refers to the paradigm of Actaeon and alludes to her own consolation speech addressed to Actaeon’s parents Chiron and Chariclo (not the

162

An explanation for Athena’s gift of augury to Teiresias may lie in the reference to her special relationship with her father Zeus and the privilege of having access to everything that belongs to him (H. 5.132-133), especially when taking into consideration that in the Melampodia version of the story Zeus was the one who appointed Teiresias as a seer.

The parallelisation of Teiresias’ initiation into augury with Hesiod’s poetic investiture is relevant to the ancient belief regarding the close association between seer and poet, which has been mentioned above in the context of the relationship of the two with honey and bees.741 In addition, traditionally both seers and poets are frequently depicted as blind, on the basis of the belief that blindness opens the way for different kinds of knowledge closely linked to the divine.742 The example par excellence of a blind singer-poet is Demodocus in the Odyssey, to whom the Muse offered the gift of song but at the same time took his eyesight away.743 Demodocus was loved by the Muse just like Chariclo was loved by Athena (H. 5.57-58) and thus he and Chariclo’s son were offered an exceptional gift that distinguished them from other mortals.744 Homer himself was thought to be behind the figure of Demodocus

same as Teiresias’ mother) in a passage preserved in a papyrus (P.Oxy. 2509) possibly derived from the Hesiodic Catalogue. With this allusion Athena reveals the conflation of Teiresias’ and Actaeon’s stories in the hymn as well as the conflation of Athena and Artemis (Depew 2004: 125-132, argues for a more extended parallelism of Artemis and Athena in Callimachus’ H. 3 and H. 5). 741 Ambühl (2005), 115, points to the fact that Hesiod himself is associated with both poetry and divination, as two works dealing with seers and oracles have been attributed to him; that is, Melampodia narrating myths of famous seers and Ornithomanteia (On Bird Omens). On the latter work, see schol. Hes. Op. 828a, according to which it succeeded the Works and Days and was athetised by Apollonius Rhodius. West (1978), 364-365, considers it as genuine. 742 See Kleinknecht (1975), 242; Müller (1987), 61; Heath (1988), 82-84. On the relationship between poetry and prophecy, see above, p. 122-123. 743 Od. 8.63-64: τὸν περὶ Μοῦσ’ ἐφίλησε, δίδου δ’ ἀγαθόν τε κακόν τε· ὀφθαλμῶν μὲν ἄμερσε, δίδου δ’ ἡδεῖαν ἀοιδήν. See Müller (1987), 60; Heath (1988), 85 n. 48. 744 Ambühl (2005), 115.

163 and for this reason was traditionally depicted as blind.745 Thus, through the combination of Hesiod’s poetic investiture and the element of blindness, Teiresias is associated with both Hesiod and Homer, the two archetypal poets.746

Furthermore, as already noted, Callimachus modelled his own encounter with the Muses in the Aetia on Hesiod’s investiture in the Theogony, specifying however the setting as the spring of Hippocrene instead of Mt. Helicon in general, that is, the same setting as that of Teiresias’ blinding.747 This, together with the fact that both texts are meant to reflect Hesiod’s poetic initiation, points to a link between Teiresias of the Hymn to Athena and Callimachus of the dream in the Aetia,748 which is further supported by the elegiac metre of the two texts.749 The Hymn to Athena in particular is the only poem in the sequence of Callimachus’ hymns that is written in elegiacs.

Several interpretations have been proposed for the choice of the elegiac metre, many of them referring to the ‘elegiac’ topic and character of the hymn as opposed to the epic theme and tone of its counterpart within the hymns’ collection, i.e. the Hymn to

Demeter.750 A different interpretation has been suggested by Heyworth, according to which the two hymns ‘recall Philitas’ Demeter, the one through its deity, the other

745 On Homer’s blindness, see Graziosi (2002), 126-150. 746 Cf. Scodel (1980), 318, who notes that the tradition that has Hesiod living twice may be modelled on Teiresias who, according to Melampodia (fr. 276 M.-W.), lived for seven generations and had an oracle in Orchomenos, the place where Hesiod’s tomb was located (Plut. Mor. 434c). 747 Cf. Müller (1987), 59; Heath (1988) 82-83; Ambühl (2005), 116. 748 Note also the scholion reporting that Callimachus was a young man at the time of his initiation, just like Teiresias at the time of his blinding, fr. 2d Harder (= Schol. Flor. Callim. 15-20): [ὡς κ]ατ’ ὄναρ σ(υμ)μείξας ταῖς Μούσ[αις ἐν Ἑ-] [λι]κ ῶνι εἰλήφοι π(αρ’ α)ὐτ(ῶν) τ(ὴν) τ(ῶν) αἰτίων [ἐξήγη-] [σιν ἀ]ρ τ ιγένειο ς ὤν , ωνκ´ ῦε μνησε [.... ἀ]π’ αὐτ(ῶν) ἀ ρχὴ [ν] λ αβὼ ν ε´οσ´α[...... ] [ ].λόγου ~ H. 5.75: Τειρεσίας δ’ ἔτι μῶνος ἁμᾶ κυσὶν ἄρτι γένεια. See Heath (1988), 82. 749 Ambühl (2005), 120. 750 For an overview of the various proposals, see Bulloch (1985), 31-38; Cameron (1995), 151. On the antithesis between ἐλεϊνόν and δεινόν themes in the two hymns, see Hopkinson (1984), 16-17. Müller (1987), 46-47, observes that the hymn written in pentameters is placed as fifth in line within the collection. McKay (1962a), 117-124, argues that the metre of H. 5 and 6 depends on their resemblance with a tragedy and a comedy respectively. Hunter (1992), 18-22, argues that the elegiac metre of H. 5 is related to Chariclo’s lament for Teiresias.

164 through its metre’.751 Similarly, Sbardella considered it as possible that Callimachus was inspired to the composition of his Hymn to Athena in elegiacs by Philitas’

Demeter, since both poems have an aetiological character.752 I would suggest that the correspondence with Philitas’ poem may extend to the content as well, if the assumption regarding the inclusion of a scene of meeting scene between Chalcon and

Demeter near the spring of Burina is right, especially when taking into account that the encounter scene between Lycidas and Simichidas in Theocritus’ Idyll 7, also viewed as an allegory of a poetic investiture, may also have been influenced by

Philitas’ Demeter. Such a connection would reinforce even more the interrelation of

Callimachus’ Hymn to Athena with the Hymn to Demeter, since the latter’s association with Philitas’ poem is supported by a sufficient amount of evidence, as demonstrated in the previous chapter. However, considering that the core narratives in the Hymn to Athena and Idyll 7 are to be viewed as positive encounters with the

‘divine’ and abounding with connotations related to the inspiration of poetry, the

Hymn to Demeter is then to be understood as the exact opposite of these.

Indeed, Erysichthon’s story in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter has been interpreted as a narrative metaphor contrasting with that in the Hymn to Athena, in the sense that the latter is one of poetic initiation, while the former one of poetic exclusion.753 This view has been proposed by Müller and is based on the understanding of Demeter’s grove as a symbol of new poetics and Erysichthon who

751 Heyworth (2004), 153. 752 Sbardella (2000), 49: ‘anzi non è forse troppo azzardato ritenere che proprio quest’opera filitea avesse ispirato al poeta di Cirene la composizione dell’Inno per i lavacri di Pallade, unico esperimento callimacheo di carme innodico in distici elegiaci con chiare finalità eziologiche’. 753 Müller (1987), 55. For a criticism of this view, see Hopkinson (1988a); Asper (1997), 229 with n. 105.

165 attempts to destroy it as the enemy of both the goddess and new poetics.754 Thus, the banquet hall, as well as the extensive dinners and drinking which Erysichthon intends to have, are opposed to the fasting goddess and her devotees and represent old poetics. Within this framework, Erysichthon’s attempt to use the timber from

Demeter’s grove to create his banquet hall is viewed as an attempt to use new material to create old-style poetry and for this reason he is punished in the end.755

Hence, Erysichthon who consumes great amounts of food but becomes thinner may be viewed as a hybrid of an old and new poet.756

This view gains further significance if, as argued by some scholars,

Callimachus was the first to associate Demeter with Erysichthon’s hunger.757 As already noted, the earliest testament of the Erysichthon story is found in the Hesiodic

Catalogue of Women,758 where, however, the protagonist is Mestra, the daughter of

Erysichthon, who, according to the text, was called Αἴθων because of his ‘burning’ hunger.759 The surviving parts of the Hesiodic text do not provide an explanation for

Erysichthon’s raving hunger and it is very possible that the tree-felling and Demeter

754 Müller (1987). His view has been adopted by Bing (1995), 40; Murray (2004), 212-223; Ambühl (2005). 755 Müller (1987), 40-45; Ambühl (2005), 203. On Callimachus’ concretisation of the timber metaphor for the composition of poerty, see Hinds (1998), 12-14. 756 Murray (2004), 214; Ambühl (2005), 203 n. 457. 757 On the literary tradition concerned with Erysichthon’s myth see Wilamowitz (1924), II 34-44; McKay (1962b), 5-60; Hollis (1970), 128-132; Fehling (1972); Hopkinson (1984), 18-31; Müller (1987), 65-76; Kron (1988), 14-16; Ambühl (2005), 160-161. 758 Cat. fr. 43a.2-69 M.-W. This passage appears to have been particularly popular in Roman Egypt, as it is preserved in a relatively large number of papyri. See Rutherford (2005), 103. 759 Cat. fr. 43a.5-6 M.-W.: τὸν δ’ Αἴθων’ ἐκάλεσσαν ἐπ]ών[υ]μ [ο]ν εἵνεκα λιμοῦ αἴθωνος κρατεροῦ φῦλα] θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων The phrase εἵνεκα λιμοῦ αἴθωνος κρατεροῦ has been supplied by Merkelbach and West (1967), on the basis of a scholion in Lycoph. Alex. 1396 (= Hes. Cat. fr. 43b M.-W.): ὁ δ’ Ἐρυσίχθων Αἴθων ἐκαλεῖτο, ὥς φησιν Ἡσίοδος διὰ τὸν λιμόν and Callim. H. 6. 66-67: αὐτίκα οἱ χαλεπόν τε καὶ ἄγριον ἔμβαλε λιμόν αἴθωνα κρατερόν, μεγάλᾳ δ’ ἐστρεύγετο νούσῳ. It has been suggested that Callimachus derived the phrase directly from the Hesiodic text. See McKay (1962b), 19-22; Reinsch-Werner (1976), 213-214, 219-229; Hopkinson (1984), 20, 135-136; Müller (1987), 65.

166 did not feature in the Hesiodic narrative.760 Likewise, Erysichthon’s sacrilege is absent from Hellanicus’ (fifth century BC) reference to Erysichthon, where he is merely said to be the son of Myrmidon, called Aethon because of his insatiable hunger.761 Aethon of burning hunger is also the central character of the satyr-play entitled Aethon composed by the fifth-century tragedian Achaeus,762and has been identified with Erysichthon.763 Although it is difficult to define the exact content of the play because of its fragmentary condition, there is no evidence that the sacrilege or the association with Demeter were part of it. All the other texts that refer to

Erysichthon are – possibly – of later date and thus are dependent on or influenced by

Callimachus’ version.764 It is useful to note here Diodorus’ account mentioned in chapter 3, according to which Triopas was the one who committed the crime ascribed to Erysichthon in Callimachus’ hymn. If there was indeed a separate tradition with

Triopas as the culprit, this most probably did not include the element of hunger, as it is absent from Diodorus’ account while there is no evidence associating Triopas with

760 Fehling (1972), 177, argues that a reference to Erysichthon’s sacrilege in the lacuna after fr. 43a.11 M.-W is not likely. Contra, Kron (1988), 14. Hopkinson (1984), 26, is sceptical. 761 Hellan. FGrH 4 F 7: Ἑλλάνικος δ’ ἐν α΄Δευκαλιωνείας Ἐρυσίχθονά φησι τὸν Μυρμιδόνος, ὅτι ἦν ἄπληστος βορᾶς, Αἴθωνα κληθῆναι. 762 TrGF 20 F 6-11. 763 McKay (1962b), 22-26; Hopkinson (1984), 20; Ambühl (2005), 175. This assumption is based on the account of the story in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, according to which Erysichthon was called Αἴθων because of his ‘burning’ hunger, fr. 43a.5-6 M.-W. See p. 166 n. 759. 764 Lycoph. Alex. 1391-1396: καὶ χερσόνησον τοῦ πάλαι ληκτηρίαν θεᾷ Κυρίτᾳ πάμπαν ἐστυγημένου, τῆς παντομόρφου βασσάρας λαμπούριδος τοκῆος, ἥτ’ ἀλφαῖσι ταῖς καθ’ ἡμέραν βούπειναν ἀλθαίνεσκεν ἀκμαίαν πατρός, 1395 ὀθνεῖα γατομοῦντος Αἴθωνος πτερά. Erysichthon lies in the riddling reference to the one who was utterly hated by the goddess Cyreta (Demeter on Cnidus), father of Mestra (here not named). Note however the problem of Alexandra’s date and ascription; on this, see Hollis (2007), 276-278. Nic. Heter. fr. 45: πολλάκις δὲ καὶ Ὑπερμήστραν πιπρασκομένην ἐπὶ γυναικὶ μὲν αἴρεσθαι τῖμον, ἄνδρα δὲ γινομένην Αἴθωνι τροφὴν ἀποφέρειν τῷ πατρί; Suda αι 142, s.v. αἴθων: ὁ βίαιος λιμός. ἀπὸ Αἴθωνος Ἠλίου τινός· ὅς τὸ Δήμητρος ἄλσος κατέκοψε καὶ τιμωρίαν ὑπέστη ἄξιαν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐλίμωττεν ἀεί; Schol. Lycoph. Alex. 1393-1396 (= Hes. Cat. fr. 43b); Ov. Met. 8.738-878.

167 hunger. Hence, it is very probable that the association of Erysichthon’s hunger with

Demeter is Callimachus’ innovation.765

Demeter’s opposition against Erysichthon’s gluttony viewed as a defence of new poetics is in accord with Apollo’s advice in the Aetia prologue to nurture the animal for sacrifice so that it is fat, but keep his Muse λεπταλέην, ‘slender’,

‘delicate’, ‘fine’.766 The adjective λεπτός is a key term in Hellenistic poetics, meaning not only ‘slim’, thin’, but also ‘fine’, ‘elegant’, ‘delicate’, in the sense of refined poetry as opposed to the παχύς, ‘thick’.767 It has long been argued that this image evokes the poetic competition in Aristophanes’ Frogs, where Euripides declares that that he will put tragedy on a diet after she had been stuffed by

Aeschylus’ heavy words.768 The same passage is also alluded to in the image of the weighing of poetry, where Philitas’ Demeter and Mimnermus’ short poems are praised.769 The fact that Demeter is the winning party in Aristophanes supports the idea that she is the goddess who symbolises good poetry. Emaciation of poets, philosophers and scholars is a topos in ancient Greek literature, attested mainly in comedy.770 Philitas is the object of such jokes in Middle comedy, while his

765 Ambühl (2005), 166, argues that Callimachus invented the crime as an ‘aetiological tropos’ for a feature of Erysichthon that was already existent in the tradition. 766 Aet. fr. 1.23-24 Pf.: ’...... ]... ἀοιδέ, τὸ μὲν θύος ὅττι πάχιστον θρέψαι, τὴ]ν Μοῦσαν δ’ ὠγαθὲ λεπταλέην· See Müller (1987), 38-39, 45; Asper (1997), 139, 156-189, 248-249. 767 On λεπτός as a term with poetological connotations in Hellenistic poetry, see e.g. Reitzenstein (1931), 23-39; Wimmel (1960), 115 n. 1; Lohse (1973), 21-34; Cairns (1979), 8-9; Cameron (1995), 323-328, 330-331, 488-493; Asper (1997), 135-199; Van Tress (2004), 43-55. Cf. also Krevans (1993), 157-159; Andrews (1998), 6-7; Steiner (2007), 202, for the view that the word refers also to the quality of sound. On the proposal and the dismissal of the supplement the end of Aet. fr. 1.11 Pf. as κατὰ λεπτόν on the basis of a scholion on this passage preserved in a London papyrus, see Bastianini (1996); Luppe (1997). 768 Ar. Ran. 939-941. 769 See Wimmel (1960), 115 n. 1; Pfeiffer (1968), 137-138; Hopkinson (1988a), 89-91; Cameron (1995), 321-329; Van Tress (2004), 45. 770 See Cameron (1991); Wilkins (2000), 28.

168 slenderness is associated with his scholarly and poetic toil.771 Relevant to this context of food metaphors is Callimachus’ wish to become like the cicada who feeds only on dew. It is significant that Erysichthon’s food is exclusively meat and wine, as opposed to Demeter’s grain and the cyceon.772 Hence, Erysichthon is Demeter’s enemy and as such is the enemy of Hellenistic poetics.

When Erysichthon’s narrative is juxtaposed with Teiresias’ in the Hymn to

Athena, is becomes clear that the paired hymns may be understood the one as an allegory for poetic initiation and the other of poetic exclusion. An additional idea that further supports this view is that the narratives in both cautionary tales may also be understood as allegories for a ‘rite of passage’, that is, of the transfer from adolescence to maturity.773 An indication of this is the fact that Callimachus depicts both Teiresias and Erysichthon as young men, despite the fact that in literary tradition they both appear as adult men: Teiresias’ best known image is that of the old seer, as he appears in the Odyssey and Attic tragedy, whereas Erysichthon in his appearance in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women is a grown man, the father of

Mestra. This has been considered as an innovation on the part of Callimachus,774 which has been explained within the framework of the typical Hellenistic interest in children and child psychology, and/or the fondness for the ‘early lives’ of heroes from the literary tradition.775 Nevertheless, Hopkinson argues that Callimachus made

Erysichthon a young man because of the parallelisation with Teiresias.776 In both

771 T. 1, 4, 21-22 Span. See Spanoudakis (2002), 54-55. One of the testimonies is Posidippus poem on Philitas mentioned in chapter 3; see Tsantsanoglou (2012), 109. 772 Hom. Hymn Cer. 206-211. 773 See Van Gennep (1909). 774 See Cahen (1929), 373; McKay (1962b), 72; Gutzwiller (1981), 39; Hopkinson (1984), 14 n. 2, 23- 24; Ambühl (2005), 162. 775 On Hellenistic interest in children, see Griffin (1986), 56; Zanker (1987), 187-188. On the interest in early lives of heroes, see Hunter (2005), 256-257. 776 Hopkinson (1984), 23-24.

169 stories the young age of the heroes is emphasised with words such as ‘child’, ‘son’.

Furthermore, both Teiresias and Erysichthon are presented as hunters, which is important since hunting is a significant activity within the framework of initatory rituals. In Teiresias’ case, the rite of passage may be explained also by the fact that his encounter with Athena may be understood as a tale of sexual intrusion.777

Teiresias especially is an apt figure for such an association, considering the myth that has him being both a man and a woman. Thus the loss of his sight may be viewed as an initiation into manhood.778 On the contrary, Erysichthon’s social exclusion may be seen as a failed initiation.

Hence, Demeter functions as a regulator of poetic boundaries, in that she manages poetic inclusion and exclusion, the first exemplified in Theocritus’ Idyll 7 while the second in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter. I would argue that this evokes the religious exclusion and inclusion in Demeter’s rites, a theme which would be analysed further in the next chapter.

777 Hunter (1992), 22; Ambühl (2005), 102. 778 Hunter (1992), 24.

170

Chapter 6

Demeter and Social Boundaries

In the previous chapter is has been demonstrated that Demeter as a symbol of new poetics manages poetic boundaries, in the sense that she presides over poetic inclusion or exclusion. An example of the first is Theocritus’ Idyll 7, where

Simichidas is admitted to the group of the celebrants of the festival of Demeter and, by implication, her poetic circle, while an instance of poetic exclusion is portrayed in

Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, where Erysichthon as an enemy of the goddess is expelled from society. In this chapter I will focus on the latter depiction of

Erysichthon’s social expulsion as well as the general social character of Callimachus’ text, in order to examine in what ways the socially informed narrative reflects social and religious aspects of Demeter.779 In the course of my discussion I will illustrate that elements in Callimachus’ hymn which have been considered as pertaining to the social domain and were thus misinterpreted as secular, are in fact in complete accord with social aspects of Demeter’s cult. Subsequently, I will argue that the social focus of Callimachus’ hymn reflects Demeter’s role in regulating social boundaries, an aspect of particular importance in her cult in Cyrene and Ptolemaic Egypt.

The part of the hymn that most clearly has a social focus is the final section of the Erysichthon narrative which deals with the consequences of the insatiable hunger imposed on Erysichthon by Demeter. More specifically, Erysichthon’s

779 By the term social I mean those features that are associated with the community and its organisation.

171 condition is presented through the effect it has on his family: his parents are ashamed to send him to feasts and banquets and his mother invents various excuses in order to conceal his condition (v. 72-86), which causes tears to all the women of the house (v.

94-95) and desperation to his father (v. 96-104); eventually, the whole oikos of

Triopas vanishes under the extreme demands for food by Erysichthon (v. 105-110), who ends up as a beggar at the crossroads (v. 111-115).

This segment of the narrative has attracted great scholarly attention and has been examined from different perspectives. Generally, its style, tone and content have been contrasted with those of the previous section of the cautionary tale encompassing the description of the grove, Erysichthon’s attempt to cut down the sacred tree and Demeter’s epiphany, which have been thought as pertaining to the

‘epic’ and/or hymnic tradition.780 The depiction of Erysichthon’s family drama, on the other hand, has been viewed as resembling narratives belonging to the genres of

New Comedy or mime, in that it presents a domestic, ‘everyday’ situation and at the same time focuses on the psychology of the heroes of the story.781 The characters’ concerns in particular have been considered as corresponding to those of contemporary ‘bourgeois’ Alexandrian society and thus their inclusion in the narrative has been seen as an example of ‘a new realism based on the rationalism of the modern world of the third century BC’.782 This juxtaposition between ‘realistic- contemporary’ elements and archaic context has been considered as one of the

780 See Hopkinson (1984), 7-8. Similarly, Zanker (1987), 189, argues that the second part of the narrative functions as a foil for the previous one in a way that makes his narrative resembling that of ‘spoudaiogeloion-literature’ in that it combines the serious and the comic. Hutchinson (1988), 349, notes the change in tone after the punishment: ‘after the grandeur and moral force of sin, warning, and divine epiphany there takes over the low theme of eating’. 781 Zanker (1987), 187-189; Depew (1993), 71-72. Cf. Reinsch-Werner (1976), 217-218, who refers to the burlesque depiction of Erysichthon with comic elements that surprise the reader. 782 Bulloch (1977), 114. Cf. Hopkinson (1984), 8.

172 sources of the ‘comic’ undertones of the narrative,783 intensified through the adoption of specific motifs deriving from comedy, such as the burning hunger,784 the son who ruins the oikos through his gluttony, the mageiroi and the detailed list of the food consumed.785 It has also been suggested that the ‘comic’ tone of Erysichthon’s story in Callimachus’ hymn may be attributed to the influence of satyr drama, a view which is further supported by the existence of the aforementioned satyr play with the title Aethon composed by the fifth century tragedian Achaeus, the central character of which may be identified with Erysichthon.786 The surviving fragments of Achaeus’ play demonstrate that hunger was a basic theme in it, but its exact content is difficult to determine.

At any rate, elements of a comic plot were present already in the Hesiodic version of the story; that is, Erysichthon’s burning hunger, the deceitful plan, the daughter, the suitors and the marital gifts.787 However, Callimachus differentiates his own version by making Erysichthon a young, childless man, leaving Mestra completely out of his narrative.788 As noted in the previous chapter, Erysichthon’s young age is an innovation on the part of Callimachus which serves the parallelism

783 Zanker (1987), 188. 784 McKay (1962a), 118, 121, suggests that Erysichthon with his burning hunger may be seen as a counterpart of Heracles whose fierce appetite is a stock theme in Attic comedy and is also present in Epicharmus’ comedy. His main argument is that Erysichthon’s narrative is modelled on Dorian comedy; see McKay (1962a), 117-124; (1962b), 134-136. On his view that the Hymn to Demeter and the Hymn to Athena create a pair consisting of a Dorian Comedy and a Threnodic Elegy respectively, see Chapter 5. 785 See Gutzwiller (1981), 45-46; Zanker (1987), 187. On the mageiros as a stock character in comedy, see Hopkinson (1984), 164; Wilkins (2000), 369-414. McKay (1962b), 94-98, also suggests that the underlying tradition of Erysichthon as a giant which may be hinted at in H. 6.34 (πάντας δ’ ἀνδρογίγαντας ὅλαν πόλιν ἀρκίος ἆραι) adds to the comic character of the narrative. 786 On Achaeus’ satyr play Aethon, see chapter 5. Ambühl (2005), 174, adds Euripides’ satyr play entitled Autolycus as a possible model for Erysichthon’s story, since in it Autolycus is portrayed as stealing Erysichthon’s daughter Mestra. 787 Burkert (1985), 135. On the Hesiodic version of the story, see p. 55-56. 788 Nonetheless, Triopas’ prayer to Poseidon (H. 6.98-104) may be an allusion to the Catalogue’s version, where Poseidon transfers Mestra on Cos and there she bears him Eurypylus (fr. 43a.55-69 M.-W.); see Bulloch (1977), 115-116 n. 24.

173 with Teiresias and its corresponding implications.789 At the same time, nevertheless, this feature of Erysichthon allows the narrative to focus on the impact his punishment has on his family and his own position within society.790 Callimachus’ intention of focusing on the social aspect of Erysichthon’s punishment is further indicated by his choice to end his narrative with the image of Erysichthon begging for scraps at the crossroads,791 especially when considering the possibility that autophagy, that is,

Erysichthon’s end in Ovid’s extended account of the myth,792 was part of the traditional version which Callimachus was aware of and consciously avoided.793

Scholars associated the social focus and the ‘comic’ elements of the last part of the Erysichthon narrative with the issue of Callimachus’ religiosity and some were led to the conclusion that the Hymn to Demeter is a ‘secular’ poem which uses the religious subject merely as a foil for the treatment of other issues.794 However, as

789 Ambühl (2005), 165, suggests that Callimachus may have conflated the figure of Thessalian Erysichthon with that of Athenian Erysichthon, eponym of the genos of the Erysichthonidae, who died young and childless. Some contamination of the two may be present in Hesiod’s version as well, as the story is set in Athens. On Athenian Erysichthon, see Robertson (1984), 388-395 (also on the Erysichthonidae and the ritual of eiresione); Kron (1988), 18-21. 790 Hopkinson (1984), 26: ‘Callimachus eliminated Mestra completely from his poem because his concern was to represent the folly of a rash youth and its social and familial consequences’. The psychological justification of Erysichthon’s action, that is, that he is led to his sacrilege by the impulse of his youth, has been noted by several scholars; see e.g. McKay (1962b), 72, 88; Müller (1987), 71, 74; Gutzwiller (1981), 39. Cf. the criticism by Ambühl (2005), 162. 791 Bulloch (1977), 114-115: ‘the focus is propriety and shame, thus for Callimachus the narrative is complete once the family scandal has become public knowledge at the cross-roads’. 792 Ov. Met. 8.875-878. On Ovid’s version of the myth and its relationship with Callimachus’, see Hollis (1970); Henrichs (1979b), 85-92; Griffin (1986); Degl’Innocenti Pierini (1987); Müller (1987), 73-76; Murray (2004). 793 It has been argued that the fact that this part of the story is not included in Callimachus or any other author who mentions Erysichthon’s myth before Ovid, does not necessarily mean that it was Ovid’s invention; see McKay (1962b), 56-57; Bulloch (1984), 221 n. 21. The latter also cites three examples of similar incidents: Hdt. 6.75.3; Paus. 8.42; Lys. 6.1. Contra, Hopkinson (1984), 24, who argues that autophagy is ‘a typically Ovidian piece of grotesque paradox’. 794 See Bulloch (1977), 113, who mentions that ‘the religious source of the situation is incidental to the true social emphasis of Callimachus’ narrative’. Similarly, McKay (1962b), 67, refers to Callimachus’ ‘academic detachment’ from the narrative. Depew (1993), 72, concludes that ‘we cannot in any way take this poem’ seriously’, since Callimachus’ allusions to various traditions undermines the supposed aim of the hymn, that is, to praise Demeter.

174 will be shown further down, neither the social focus, nor the ‘comic’ elements are incompatible with religious interest.

First, it is necessary to present in more detail the elements that give a ‘social’ touch to Callimachus’ hymn, not only in the last section of the Erysichthon narrative, but also in the ritual frame. I will begin my discussion from the social elements of the cautionary tale. As mentioned above, Erysichthon’s punishment has a social aspect which is centred on the shame that his hunger brings to his family and on him becoming an outcast from society in the end. The parents’ shame for their son’s condition is contrasted with Erysichthon’s and his companions’ shamelessness,795 not only because they are oppositional sentiments, but also because they apply to two different domains. More specifically, Erysichthon and his companions are characterised as shameless in the context of their interaction with the goddess, that is, when they all invade Demeter’s grove and when Erysichthon disregards and threatens to attack the goddess disguised as her priestess Nicippe.796 Hence, their shamelessness is primarily associated with the religious nature of Erysichthon’s crime, that is, the destruction of the sacred grove and the dismissal and threatening of the priestess.797 On the other hand, the parents’ shame in the end is related to the social consequences of his punishment, centred on the public scandal which

795 Η. 6.73: αἰδόμενοι γονέες, προχάνα δ’ εὑρίσκετο πᾶσα ~ Η. 6.36: ἐς δὲ τὸ τᾶς Δάματρος ἀναιδέες ἔδραμον ἄλσος; 6.45: φᾶ δὲ παραψύχοισα κακὸν καὶ ἀναιδέα φῶτα. See McKay (1962b), 70-71. 796 It has been argued that Erysichthon’s dismissal of the disguised goddess is modelled on Hom. Il. 1.11-42, the scene of Agamemnon’s encounter and rejection of Chryses, Apollo’s priest, thus underlining the seriousness of his crime and foreshadowing his punishment, which as not λοιμός as in the Iliad, but λιμός; see Bulloch (1977), 102-104; Hopkinson (1984), 6, 119. 797 Cf. also Demeter’s address of Erysichthon as κύον, κύον after his dismissal of her disguised as her priestess (H. 6.63). Pontes (1995), notes that this address is linked to the belly, as in Hom. Od. 7.216 (οὐ γάρ τι στυγερῇ ἐπὶ γαστέρι κύντερον ἄλλο); cf. Hopkinson (1984), 134. McKay (1962b), 103, also associates Erysichthon’s shamelessness with his hunger. The narrator addresses himself the same way in Callim. Aet. fr. 75.4 Pf. See also Ar. Vesp. 1403, where the same address is to a female dog.

175

Erysichthon’s hunger could cause at social events, rather than the sacrilege itself.798

Aidos, defined as the anxiety that one feels regarding one’s own image in the eyes of others, is a social sentiment par excellence, as it involves not only the person who is

αἰδόμενος, but also the rest of the community; as such, it is a crucial component in social networks, signalling the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour .799 The emphasis on the parents’ aidos is explicated at the very end of the cautionary tale, when Erysichthon as a beggar is referred to as the ‘king’s son’ for the first time in the narrative, thus unveiling Triopas’ relationship with the community and, by implication, the seriousness of the damage that Erysichthon’s malady has caused to the social face of his oikos.800 This idea is further underlined by the fact that

Erysichthon is not merely a beggar in the end, but also one who begs for the refuse of feasts at crossroads;801 as noted in the previous chapter, this image is reminiscent of the δεῖπνα of Hecate, i.e. the refuse from purificatory rites, which were placed on crossroads and their consumption was a sign of extreme shamelessness or poverty.802

The verse describing Erysichthon begging for refuse, which is also the finale of the cautionary tale, recalls Melanthius’ address to Eumaeus referring to Odysseus disguised as a beggar in the Odyssey,803 revealing thus the general parallelisation

798 Gutzwiller (1981), 45; Hopkinson (1984), 7-8; Zanker (1987), 187-188; Müller (1987), 18. 799 On aidos, see Cairns (1993), 140. The parents’ aidos has been interpreted differently by McKay (1962b), 71-72, 96-97, who thought that Triopas is self-centred and his wife is ‘no paragon of virtue either’, because they both appear to care more about their social standing than their son’s life, which he considered as an indication that the poet does not aim to raise the reader’s sympathy for his characters. 800 McKay (1962b), 71. Erysichthon’s becoming a beggar in the end has been associated with ritual begging, and more specifically the ritual of eiresione; see Burkert (1979) 134-135; Robertson (1984), 388-395; Rutherford (2005), 112. 801 H. 6.114-115: καὶ τόχ’ ὁ τῶ βασιλῆος ἐνὶ τριόδοισι καθῆστο αἰτίζων ἀκόλως τε καὶ ἔκβολα λύματα δαιτός. 802 See Jameson (1994), 38 with n. 12. McKay (1962b), 71 n. 2, notes the ritual impurity of this act. Cf. Hopkinson (1984), 171, who commends that λύματα is ‘in general a strong word, not simply ‘leavings’, but ‘refuse’, ‘filth’. 803 Od. 17.220-222:

176 between Erysichthon and Odysseus. Relevant to this is the fact that the name

Odysseus assumes in his guise as a beggar when he lands on Ithaca is Aethon,804 i.e.

Erysichthon’s byname in other accounts of the myth and identical with the adjective that characterises the λιμός imposed on him by Demeter in Callimachus’ hymn.805

Odysseus in the Odyssey frequently refers to his gaster and filling it, either as a prohibiting or a driving force, but always with negative connotations;806 likewise,

Erysichthon’s gaster is called ‘evil’, ‘leaping’ as he eats more and more.807 The parallelisation of the two heroes, both of noble birth, serves to emphasise the contrast between them: the one is merely disguised as a beggar and is soon to be victorious, while the other is a real beggar who has caused his and his family’s complete destruction.808

πτωχὸν ἀνιηρόν, δαιτῶν ἀπολυμαντῆρα; ὃς πολλῇς φλιῇσι παραστὰς φλίψεται ὤμους, αἰτίζων ἀκόλους, οὐκ ἄορα οὐδὲ λέβητας. See McKay (1962b), 71-72; Bulloch (1977), 108-112, 114; Gutzwiller (1981), 48; Hopkinson (1984), 170; Murray (2004), 214-216; Van Tress (2004), 176-177. 804 Od. 19.183: ἐμοὶ δ’ ὄνομα κλυτὸν Αἴθων 805 On Odysseus as Aethon, see Levaniouk (2000). Ibid., 44, suggests that the name Aethon may also be understood as a metaphor for someone who is socially hungry, as he is dependent on other people’s resources. Skempis (2008), 371-372 n. 26, comments that Odysseus’ forged identity as Aethon may also be interpreted by his ‘burning’ desire to return to his homeland and in his former status as a king, husband, and father. 806 See Od. 7.215-221, where Odysseus tells Alcinoos that he needs to fill his ‘hateful’ gaster in order to be able to remember and recount his woes; in 15.343-345 he speaks of the ‘accursed’ gaster that brings woes to mortals; similarly, in 17.286-289 he refers to the ‘accursed’ gaster that leads men to seafaring; in 18.52-54 he mentions that his evil gaster urges him to fight with a younger man; in 18.362-364 he is accused for his insatiable gaster as a beggar by Eurymachus. Cf. Od. 6.130-134, where, on his arrival on the Phaeacians’ island, Odysseus preparing to approach the company of maidens is compared to a lion urged by his gaster to attack the flocks; Erysichthon is also compared to a lioness in H. 6.51. On gaster and its significance in Homer see Svenbro (1976), 50-59; Thalmann (1984), 88-89, 144-146; Pucci (1987), 165-180; Vernant (1990), 194. 807 H. 6.88-89: ἤσθιε μυρία πάντα· κακὰ δ’ ἐξάλλετο γαστήρ αἰεὶ μᾶλλον ἔδοντι […] Hopkinson (1984), 148-149, suggests that v. 88 alludes to Od. 17.228 and 18.364: βούλεαι, ὄφρ’ ἂν ἔχῃς βόσκειν σὴν γαστέρ’ ἄναλτον 808 See Hopkinson (1984), 10; Van Tress (2004), 176-177.

177

The social aspect of Erysichthon’s punishment may be explained through its correspondence with the – partly – social nature of his motive.809 Erysichthon himself admits to the disguised goddess that the reason he decided to cut down the sacred grove was to build a banquet hall for his friends,810 which is, on the one hand, a sign of his gluttony, i.e. a feature he possessed even before Demeter’s affliction of the punishment,811 while, on the other, it may be interpreted as the expression of his desire to form a separate social group consisting of himself and his fellows, demonstrating thus his independence from his parents.812 As noted in the previous chapter, Erysichthon’s story may be viewed as a failed ‘rite of passage’ from adolescence to maturity, i.e. the transfer from the oikos to the polis, from an apolitical state – thus ‘uncivilised’ – to the status of the citizen who participates in public affairs and marries for the procreation of children.813 This is usually achieved through the withdrawal from the community and the admission into a ‘marginal’ state or space.814 Erysichthon’s intention to organise common dinners with his friends is reversed after the affliction of his punishment, as he dines alone enclosed in his house,815 literally marginalised, excluded from all social events to which he is

809 On the correspondence between punishment and crime, see Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1924), II 32; Müller (1987), 16. 810 H. 6.53-55. Some scholars considered Erysichthon’s motive as selfish and disproportionally petty compared to the seriousness of his crime; see McKay (1962b), 101; Müller (1987), 70-71. 811 See Ambühl (2005), 168 with n. 302, who notes that the frequency (αἰέν) and extravagance (ἄδην) of Erysichthon’s intended banquets (αἰὲν ἐμοῖς ἑτάροισιν ἄδην θυμαρέας ἀξῶ, v. 55) emphasise Erysichthon’s inherent gluttony. 812 Related to this is the view that Erysichthon’s disobedience to the warnings of Demeter-disguised as her priestess was motivated by his desire not to humiliate himself in front of his friends. Müller (1987), 71, 74; McKay (1962b), 72, 88; Gutzwiller (1981), 39. Cf. Men. Epit. 169-171: (Χαι) ἴωμεν· ὡς καὶ μειρακυλλίων ὄχλος εἰς τὸν τόπον τις ἔρχεθ’ ὑποβεβρεγμένων οἷς] μὴ ’νοχλεῖν εὔκαιρον εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ. 813 Bowie (1993), 46. 814 See Versnel (1990), 44-59. For instance, groups of young men withdrew to the countryside where they hunted and ate together, to return later to the polis having acquired a new status as adult men. Such is the harpage of youths in Crete; see Ephorus FGrH 70 F 149. 815 H. 6.87:

178 invited: the games of Itonian Athena, the wedding of Actorion, a banquet and another wedding.816 Erysichthon’s elimination from events that in an ordered society men of his age are expected to attend, as well as the image of men of his age getting married underlines his marginal position. This idea is further emphasised by the excuses that his mother uses to dismiss the invitations: in one case Erysichthon went away to demand the payment of a hundred oxen, in others he is lying on bed because he got hurt during a hunting expedition or during an athletic competition or chariot race, and in another he is on the mountain counting his herd. These excuses, either reflecting the mother’s ‘bourgeois’ concerns or deriving from the ‘epic’ world, refer to activities typical for a young man, the son of a ‘good’ family.817 Erysichthon, however, after the infliction of his punishment is neither a young nor an adult man, but a βρέφος (‘new-born babe’), as his father calls him, dependent on his parents’ resources.818

It has been observed that the people who invite Erysichthon to social events are connected through mythological stories with the family of Triopas and especially with Erysichthon’s generation;819 this indicates Erysichthon’s exclusion from his broader familial circle.820 McKay also suggested that the anonymous man who is getting married and invites only Erysichthon to his wedding (as opposed to

Actorion’s wedding where Triopas is also invited) may be one of the friends for

ἐνδόμυχος δἤπειτα πανάμερος εἰλαπιναστάς. 816 H. 6.74-86. 817 Zanker (1987), 188, considers them as expressing ‘bourgeois’ concerns. On the other hand, Hutchinson (1988), 349, argues that the excuses derive from the epic world, as the payment of a hundred oxen indicates. Cf. also Hopkinson (1984), 142, who mentions the corresponding bridal gift to Iphidamas in Hom. Il. 11.244; Ambühl (2005), 171 n. 314, adds more parallels. The counting of the herd has also parallels in the Homeric epics; for passages, see Hopkinson (1984), 146. 818 H. 6.100: τοῦτο τὸ δείλαιον γένετο βρέφος. 819 See Cahen (1930), 270; McKay (1962b), 113; Hopkinson (1984), 140; Ambühl (2005), 170 n. 311. 820 Zanker (1987), 187, notes that the familial relationship with those who send invitation contributes to the realism of the story.

179 whom he wanted to build his banquet hall.821 At any rate, neither his friends nor the companions who helped him in the felling of the grove are explicitly mentioned after the infliction of the punishment, as the last reference to his companions is that they run away once they saw the goddess, leaving their axes on the trees, and that

Demeter spared them because they were following Erysichthon’s orders.822 In this way, Erysichthon alone is placed in the centre of the punishment, emphasising his social isolation, which follows a progressive course: first he is excluded from the circle of his friends, then from his family and eventually from society in general.

As noted by Bulloch, Erysichthon becoming a beggar marks the conclusion of the story, as that is the point when ‘private shame becomes public’.823 The interplay between private and public spaces – or inner space and the outside –824 is a basic element of the second part of the Erysichthon narrative and is closely related to the sentiment of aidos. That is, the main concern of Erysichthon’s aidomenoi parents is to keep their son within the limits of the domos (‘house’), in order to protect their oikos (‘household’) from the public scandal.825 The emphasis on Erysichthon’s confinement inside is indicated in the juxtaposition of the οὐκ ἔνδοι in the beginning

821 McKay (1962b), 112. 822 H. 6.59-62. Bulloch (1977), 107, 113, considered this sequence of events as ‘incomplete’ and explained it on the basis of Callimachus being more concerned with the narration of ‘a secular story of social behaviour’ than a moral tale. McKay (1962b), 101, viewed this as a ‘realistic’ ending. Ambühl (2005), 168, based on an observation made by Hopkinson (1984: 7) that there is a correspondence in the numbers of Erysichthon’s companions and the servants who prepare the meals for him (v. 69), suggests that the comrades in the first part of the story are identical with the twenty servants in the second part, which would mean that Erysichthon’s helpers became an instrument for his punishment. However, the identification between the two cannot be proved and is not necessary for the plot. 823 Bulloch (1977), 113. 824 The notion of the private is emphasised through the focus on the reactions of the women of the house in H. 6.94-95: κλαῖε μὲν ἁ μάτηρ, βαρὺ δ’ ἔστενον αἱ δύ’ ἀδελφαί χὠ μαστὸς τὸν ἔπωνε καὶ αἱ δέκα πολλάκι δῶλαι. The women’s domain is the most private part of the oikos; cf. Ar. Ran. 969 on Euripides choosing topics from the sphere of the female. 825 Cf. Hunter (1992), 31-32. On the oikos signifying the household as well as the nuclear family, see e.g. Humphreys (1993), 2-21; Cox (1998), 130-167.

180 of the mother’s speech enumerating the excuses with the ἐνδόμυχος right after the end of the speech.826 These two terms demonstrate the contrast between

Erysichthon’s whereabouts during his fictive activities and his actual location: for the former he goes to different places, both in the city and in the countryside, while, in reality, he is restricted within the boundaries of the house. Overall, both the domos and the oikos set a protective net around Erysichthon’s condition, and by implication, his parents’ aidos.827 Thus, once the oikos falls apart, shame is revealed beyond the limits of the domos and it is then that Erysichthon becomes an outcast from society, as is exemplified in his sitting and eating in public, deprived of a social status.

Related to Erysichthon’s destruction of the oikos is the reference to his eating the heifer which was nurtured for Hestia,828 as Hestia is the goddess who personifies the holy hearth, which in turn symbolises the life of the house and the wellbeing of its inhabitants.829 Since a town or a city is an extended oikos, it has its own sacred hearth which functions as a symbol of the community and is located in the prytaneion, the centre of public life and civic authority. Hestia’s importance is indicated in private and public sacrifice, since she is said to receive the first and last honours at banquets and is always offered a portion of the sacrifice, regardless of the

826 H. 6.76: ‘οὐκ ἔνδοι, χθιζὸς γὰρ ἐπὶ Κραννῶνα βέβακε ~ 6.87: ἐνδόμυχος δἤπειτα πανάμερος εἰλαπιναστάς. Ἐνδοι is commonly used to signify the inner space of the house, e.g. Ar. Ach. 395; Theocr. Id. 15.1, 77. 827 H. 6.111-115: μέστα μὲν ἐν Τριόπαο δόμοις ἔτι χρήματα κεῖτο, μῶνον ἄρ’ οἰκεῖοι θάλαμοι κακὸν ἠπίσταντο. ἀλλ’ ὅκα τὸν βαθὺν οἶκον ἀνεξήραναν ὀδόντες, καὶ τόχ’ ὁ τῶ βασιλῆος ἐνὶ τριόδοισι καθῆστο αἰτίζων ἀκόλως τε καὶ ἔκβολα λύματα δαιτός. Cf. Philocleon’s confinement in the house (and the net covering the house) at the beginning of Aristophanes’ Wasps. 828 H. 6.106: καὶ τὰν βῶν ἔφαγεν, τὰν Ἑστίᾳ ἔτρεφε μάτηρ 829 On Hestia’s presence in all houses, see Hymn. Hom. 24.1-2; 29.1-4. See Miller (1978), 15.

181 deity to whom it is offered.830 Nevertheless, Hestia as a goddess and a ‘concept’ is more closely associated with the political than the religious world, as is demonstrated by the rarity of her priesthoods.831 Furthermore, the residence of the hearth, the prytaneion, houses not a religious authority, i.e. that of basileus, but the archon, who is a political official; likewise, the office of the prytaneis is of an administrative rather than a religious nature.832 Hence, Erysichthon eating the heifer which his mother was nurturing for sacrifice to Hestia is symbolic of both the financial and social destruction he brings to his oikos.

At the same time, it functions as a counterpart to Demeter blocking agricultural production, which leads to general famine and to the humans’ inability to sacrifice to the gods in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter.833 The famine in the Homeric hymn is realised when Demeter withdraws in her temple; similarly, in Callimachus’ hymn the destruction of Triopas’ oikos takes place while Erysichthon is enclosed in the house, devouring everything available. However, the ‘famine’ that Erysichthon causes through his insatiable hunger – thus, by implication, the famine that Demeter causes – afflicts only his own oikos, while in the Homeric hymn it affects mankind in its entirety.834 In the former case, the result influences the relationship of

Erysichthon’s family with their fellow citizens, while in the latter it affects humans’

830 See Hymn. Hom. 29.4-6; Hymn. Hom. Ven. 30-32; Pind. Nem. 11.6-7; Pl. Euthphr. 3a; Cra. 401b; Ar. Vesp. 846; Aristonicus FGrH 493 F 5. Cf. Olson (2012), 318-319. 831 Kajava (2004), 2. 832 See Kajava (2004), 4-5. The political importance of the hearth is also indicated by the fact that on the occasion of colonisation, the fire from the hearth of the metropolis had to be transferred to the hearth of the new settlement. 833 Hymn. Hom. Cer. 292-304. 834 H. 6.66: αὐτίκα οἱ χαλεπόν τε καὶ ἄγριον ἔμβαλε λιμόν ~ Hymn. Hom. Cer. 310-311: καί νύ κε πάμπαν ὄλεσσε γένος μερόπων ἀνθρώπων λιμοῦ ὑπ’ ἀργαλέης […] According to Faulkner (2012), 89, ‘the inversion is pointedly ironic, for not even an endless crop would satisfy the hunger of Erysichthon.’

182 relationship with the gods. This is indicative of the strong ‘social’ tone of

Callimachus’ narrative (accomplished through the reference to the ‘social’ goddess

Hestia, nevertheless), as opposed to the more clearly religious character of the

Homeric hymn.835

A reference to the residence of the city’s hearth, the prytaneion, is found in the second part of the ritual frame; there, the uninitiated are instructed to follow the procession of Demeter’s kalathos as far as the city’s prytaneion, while the initiated less than sixty years old are told to walk until they reach the goddess’ temple.836 The presence of the prytaneion in the context of the procession and right after

Erysichthon’s cautionary tale is particularly appropriate, not only because it is the symbol of the polis par excellence, but also because of its association with communal dining. More specifically, the prytaneion was the place where meals for honoured guests, such as public embassies, benefactors and citizens worthy of a deed,837 were hosted.838 The food that was consumed there was of modest character, including barley cakes, olives, leeks and cheese;839 relevant to this is Athenaeus’ reference to the meals in the prytaneion in Athens as an example of Athenian

835 On the Homeric Hymn to Demeter functioning on two levels, the divine and human, see Clay (1989), 207; Foley (1994), 53. 836 H. 6.128-130: μέστα τὰ τᾶς πόλιος πρυτανήια τὰς ἀτελέστως, †τὰς δὲ τελεσφορίας† ποτὶ τὰν θεὸν ἄχρις ὁμαρτεῖν, αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι. 837 Among those who ate in the prytaneion in Athens was the Hierophant, the high priest of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis; see Schmitt Pantel (1992), 146. 838 There were three categories of meals offered in the prytaneion, i.e. ξένια, δεῖπνον and σίτησις, which were distinguished by the nature of the honour and their duration; see Miller (1978), 4-11; Schmitt Pantel (1992), 145-177. The prytaneion was a thriving institution throughout the Classical period, but from the fourth century BC onwards its importance began to decline. In the Roman period it was more important as a religious centre associated with Hestia rather than the centre of the city’s political life. 839 Jameson (1994), 47.

183 restrained eating, as opposed to Thessalian gluttony.840 Dining in the prytaneion explicates the concept of commensality, which is basic in every ordered society and applies also to its smaller unit, the oikos. This is demonstrated in Aristotle’s definition of the oikos (quoting Charondas’ and Epimenides’ views) as a commonality of people who share the same meal-tub or eat at the same manger.841

The notion of commensality is present in the Erysichthon narrative in the reference to the feasts and banquets to which Erysichthon’s parents are ashamed to send him, as both words used to signify these events have the sense of sharing:

ἔρανος (εἰς ἐράνως in the poem) is understood as a meal to which each contributes his share, while ξυνδείπνια means ‘common or shared banquets’.842 The same idea may underlie Demeter’s announcement of Erysichthon’s punishment, i.e. that his banquets will be θαμιναί.843 Hopkinson translates the word as ‘thick and fast’,844 whereas its exact meaning is ‘crowded’; if understood thus, it casts an ironic touch on Demeter’s proclamation, as eventually Erysichthon has his banquets alone, enclosed in the house, draining his oikos’ resources. Erysichthon as a glutton and a solitary eater is reminiscent of comic gluttons, often accused of not sharing their food and wine.845 Food and eating is an important component of comic discourse, while

840 Athen. 4.137e-f. Cf. Athen. 4.149d-150b, where it is mentioned that the hieropoios who exceeded the prescribed amount of food was to be fined; 4.185f-186a, where it is said that the prytaneis in Athens consumed moderate meals that promoted the safety of the city. See Wilkins (2000), 178 with n. 121, where he compares the regulated civic dining in the prytaneion with the control of the politicians. 841 Arist. Pol. 1.1252b: ἡ μὲν οὖν εἰς πᾶσαν ἡμέραν συνεστηκυῖα κοινωνία κατὰ φύσιν οἶκός ἐστιν, οὓς Χαρώνδας μὲν καλεῖ ὁμοσιπύους, Ἐπιμενίδης δὲ ὁ Κρὴς ὁμοκάπους. 842 H. 6.72-73: οὔτε νιν εἰς ἐράνως οὔτε ξυνδείπνια πέμπον αἰδόμενοι γονέες, προχάνα δ’ εὑρίσκετο πᾶσα. 843 H. 6.64: θαμιναὶ γάρ ἐς ὕστερον εἰλαπίναι τοι. 844 Hopkinson (1984), 67. 845 A good example is the dog in Wasps, which is put into trial because he did not share his food (οὐδὲν μετέδωκεν οὐδὲ τῷ κοινῷ γ’, ἐμοί, v. 917) and for that reason is called the ‘most solitary eater’ of all dogs (κυνῶν ἁπάντων ἄνδρα μονοφαγίστατον, v. 923); see Wilkins (2000), 69. The

184 communal eating is often portrayed at the end of comic plays within the framework of a wedding, a festival or a feast, functioning as the desired goal of the plot.846 The issue of who is allowed to participate in this communal feasting is also crucial, with gluttons, wealthy and greedy politicians normally being excluded from it.847 The violation of commensality in the prytaneion in particular is a central theme in

Aristophanes’ Knights. There, the slave Paphlagon, behind whom is the Athenian general Cleon who in real life was awarded the honour of dining in the prytaneion, is accused of exploiting the honour by stealing food and demonstrating excessive appetite; this has been though of as an allegory for his political greed.848 At the end of the play, order is restored when Cleon/Paphlagon is led out of the prytaneion and the agora as a pharmakos (‘scapegoat’), convicted to sell sausages to strangers near the city’s gates while exchanging insults with prostitutes and drinking the dirty waters from the baths.849

Similarly, Erysichthon’s social exclusion in Callimachus’ hymn has been viewed as associated with pharmakos rituals during which a pharmakos was driven out the house or the city in order to avert the danger of famine and to promote fertility.850 Such a rite was practised in Chaeronea, where, according to Plutarch, the archon gave instructions for the βουλίμου ἐξέλασις, that is, the driving out of one of

consumption of meat in particular (the kind of food that Erysichthon eats) is associated with the concept of the sacrifice and the distribution of meat; see Verbanck-Piérard (1992), 93. 846 Wilkins (2000), 101-102. 847 Examples of gluttons being expelled in comedy are: Lamachus who is excluded from the feast and the Athesteria festival in the Acharnians, Hyperbolus, who is excluded from the feast in the Knights and Peace, the gluttons Morychus, Teleas and Glaucetes in Peace, excluded from the food market in Peace. See Wilkins (2000), 200. 848 Ar. Eq. 280-283, 763-766, 1220-1221. He is compared with greedy Cerberus (v. 1030-1034) and is contrasted to Aristides and Miltiades, who dined on an equal basis with Demos (v. 1325). See Wilkins (2000), 182-183, 189-191. 849 Ar. Eq. 1397-1408. The dirty waters are reminiscent of Erysichthon eating the refuse at the crossroads. Cf.Wilkins (2000), 184, who mentions as a parallel the ritual of leading a scapegoat from the prytaneion in Alus in Achaea, mentioned in Hdt. 7.197. 850 See Cassin (1987), 110-111; Hunter (1992), 30-32.

185 the servants with wands of agnus castus.851 In Hunter’s view, the fact that

Erysichthon is enclosed within the house instead of being sent out reverses the ritual pattern and for that reason leads to destruction.852 Faraone has recently re-examined the idea of Erysichthon as a pharmakos by going a step further and suggesting that

Erysichthon is assimilated to the carnivorous famine demon Boubrostis who was the object of a cult in Anatolia, concluding that Erysichthon’s exclusion as a pharmakos is related to scapegoat rituals against famine daemons related to Demeter.853 He also explains the comic elements in the Erysichthon narrative by suggesting that the pharmakos ritual against daemons is reflected in scenes from Aristophanic comedies where a hero is driven out of the house as if embodying a demon or where the comic opponent is treated like a scapegoat;854 hence, he argues, Callimachus in his comic treatment of Erysichthon has adopted the motif of the comic abuse of daemons who eventually suffer the same damage they inflict.855 The validity of Faraone’s suggestion regarding Erysichthon embodying the famine daemon Boubrostis, albeit interesting, is difficult to prove; however, the understanding of Erysichthon as

851 Plut. Quaest. Conv. 693e-f. On the scapegoat ritual in general, see Bremmer (1983). 852 Hunter (1992), 31-32. 853 Faraone (2012). He bases his argument on H. 6.102 (νῦν δὲ κακὰ βούβρωστις ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσι κάθηται), interpreting it as referring to Erysichthon’s personification of the κακὰ βούβρωστις. On boubrostis, see the articles by Richardson (1961a); (1961b); (1961c). In his view, the idea of the demon of famine was present already in the Hesiodic version, where Erysichthon was transformed into a male demon of famine named Aithon; see ibid., 63-68. He also provides additional evidence for the popularity of the pharmakos ritual in the Greek world, emphasising the existence of a custom which dictated that the son of a king or the wealthiest citizen had to sacrifice himself for the protection of the city from a famine or a plague; see ibid., 68-71. 854 Faraone (2012), 71-72, mentions as an important parallel a passage from Aristophanes’ Clouds (v. 121-123), where Strepsiades threatens to lead his son Pheidippides out of the house by saying: ‘By Demeter, you will not eat anything of mine, not you, not your racehorse etc.’. He suggests that ‘Aristophanes may even have had the Erysichthon story in mind here, because Strepsiades’ oath ‘by Demeter’ is odd for a man, unless of course the poet is thinking of Demeter’s important role in Erysichthon story’ (ibid., 72). This is a misleading conclusion, since the oath by Demeter is not uncommon for men in Aristophanes (e.g. Eq. 435, 461, 468, 812 by Paphlagon/Cleon; Vesp. 629 by Philocleon; Ran. 42 by Heracles, 668 by Aeacus, 1067 by Dionysus, 1222 by Euripides; Plut. 64 by Chremylus), while, as already noted, Demeter’s involvement in the Erysichthon story cannot be argued with certainty for the earlier versions of the myth. 855 Faraone (2012), 73-77.

186 pharmakos is certainly not far-fetched and is significant in that it combines religious and social concerns.

The same applies to the ‘comic’ elements of the narrative, which, as mentioned above, have been mistakenly considered as pertaining exclusively to the

‘social’ domain and as being contradictory to religious interest. In reality, the combination of religious and social-political elements is a basic feature of the comedic genre, which by definition has strong relations with religious festivals.856

Relevant to the current discussion is Demeter’s role in comedy, as she, together with

Dionysus and other, lesser gods associated with agriculture are the deities that most frequently appear in Old Comedy, usually invoked in order to promote agricultural fertility, that is, one of the basic concerns of Old Comedy. At the same time, they are expected to guarantee and protect communal values and commensality by excluding those who do not belong to the community.857 Moreover, as illustrated in chapter 4, the comic element is not incompatible with ancient Greek religion, since joking and laughter constitute an important part of (primarily but not exclusively) Demeter’s rites, where they function as the means for creating the sense of community and collective identity among the devotees.858 This idea is first exemplified in the part of the myth from which this feature of the ritual has been considered to derive, that is,

Iambe’s jesting as recorded in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter; there, Demeter, who does not eat or drink, is perceived as the outsider, who is, however, gradually admitted into the circle of mortal women through her response to joking with

856 See Henderson (1991), 17, who argues that obscenity in comedy is related to the obscenity in Attic fertility cults. 857 Wilkins (2000), 108-109. 858 See Halliwell (2008), 157-158.

187 affirmative laughter.859 Likewise, in Demeter’s festivals ritual joking and laughing contribute to the formation of a solid religious group, a small community of devotees. The sense of community is also reinforced by the collective fasting and communal dining performed by the devotees,860 while the idea that they follow

Demeter’s paradigm lends them the impression that they belong to the same circle as the goddess.

This idea of a community of people around Demeter underlies the narrator’s wish which marks the return to the ritual frame in Callimachus’ hymn, i.e. not to be a friend or share a wall (ὁμότοιχος) with a man who is hateful to Demeter, since bad neighbours (κακογείτονες) are his enemies.861 The adjective ὁμότοιχος (v. 117), is first attested in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, in a passage where νόσος is said to be

ὁμότοιχος of great health, meaning that only a wall separates great health

(allegorically great happiness) from disease (destruction) and, thus one must be aware of the danger of hybris and ate.862 The notion of illness corresponds to

Callimachus’ depiction of Erysichthon’s hunger as a disease,863 while the general context of the Aeschylean passage corresponds to the situation in Callimachus’ hymn, as it deals with hybris and the destruction of the oikos.864

859 Cf. O’Higgins (2003), 193: ‘in no other incident in Greek myth a mortal deliberately makes a divinity laugh and thereby creates a psychological bond between two orders of being’. 860 Ritual dining held an important role in Demeter’s rituals, as demonstrated by the large number of dining rooms in her sanctuaries in Corinth and Gela. On Corinth, see Bookidis (1993; (2008), 102- 103; Bookidis, Hansen, Snyder and Goldberg (1999). On Bitalemi, see Kron (1992). 861 Η. 6.116-117: Δάματερ, μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν φίλος, ὅς τοι ἀπεχθής, εἴη μηδ’ ὁμότοιχος· ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί. 862 Aesch. Ag. 1003-1004: [..] νόσος γὰρ γείτων ὁμότοιχος ἐρείδει. 863 H. 6.67: […] μεγάλᾳ δ’ ἐστρεύγετο νούσῳ. See McKay (1962a), 119-121; (1962b), 123-124. 864 Aesch. Ag. 1005-1017. See Reinsch-Werner (1976), 372-373.

188

The word κακογείτων is attested only once before Callimachus, in Sophocles’

Philoctetes,865 where, however, it has the meaning of ‘a neighbour to his misery’.866

Despite printing κακογείτονες, Hopkinson supports Meineke’s replacement of the word with κακοδαίμονες (‘those unblessed by the gods’), because, in his view, it contributes to the balance of the sentence in terms of content, while it eliminates the repetition of the notion of the neighbour.867 However, there is no reason to change the transmitted κακογείτονες, not only because it serves the chiasmus of ἀπεχθής-

ὁμότοιχος-κακογείτονες-ἐχθροί,868 but also because the Sophocles passage where the word κακογείτων first appears demonstrates remarkable similarities in content with

Callimachus’, an observation that, to my knowledge, has not been made by any of the scholars who examined the hymn. More specifically, the verse immediately following the one containing the word κακογείτων in Sophocles refers to a plague

(βαρυβρώς) which eats Philoctetes’ flesh and strains his blood,869 which is reminiscent of Erysichthon’s βούβρωστις (v. 102) that ‘wasted him away to his sinews’ and left him only ‘skin and bones’.870 Moreover, some verses further down in Philoctetes refer to the hero’s efforts to satisfy his gaster through hunting,871 which corresponds to the topic of food, animals in particular, in Erysichthon’s

865 Soph. Phil. 692: οὐδέ τιν᾽ ἐγχώρων κακογείτονα 866 See Kamerbeek (1980), 101. 867 Hopkinson (1984), 172-173. 868 See Hunter (1992), 31 n. 61. 869 Soph. Phil. 693: παρ᾽ ᾧ στόνον ἀντίτυπον βαρυβρῶτ᾽ ἀποκλαύσειεν αἱματηρόν 870 H. 6.92-93: καὶ τούτων ἔτι μέζον ἐτάκετο, μέστ’ ἐπὶ νεύροις δειλαίῳ ῥινός τε καὶ ὀστέα μῶνον ἐλείφθη. Translation by Hopkinson (1984). 871 Soph. Phil. 708-711: οὐ φορβὰν ἱερᾶς γᾶς σπόρον, οὐκ ἄλλων αἴρων τῶν νεμόμεσθ’ ἀνέρες ἀλφησταί, πλὴν ἐξ ὠκυβόλων εἴ ποτε τόξων 710 πτανοῖς ἰοῖς ἀνύσειε γαστρὶ φορβάν.

189 narrative. Therefore, by adopting the word from Sophocles, Callimachus emphasises the similarity between Erysichthon’s and Philoctetes’ conditions and at the same time underlines the contrast between the positive meaning of the κακογείτων (κακῶν

γείτων) whom Philoctetes lacks and the κακογείτων (κακός γείτων) that Erysichthon himself is.

The value of a good neighbour is a traditional topic in Greek literature,872 while the idea of a bad neighbour is best exemplified in a passage from Hesiod’s

Works and Days which scholars have long argued that Callimachus had in mind in referring to the κακογείτων.873 The idea expressed in Hesiod is that a bad neighbour is a great plague, in the same way as a good one is a great blessing, since ‘not even an ox would be lost, if not for a bad neighbour’. The reason an ox will not be lost unless one has a bad neighbour is that a good neighbour will be able to prevent the ox from getting stolen or leaving the house by warning his neighbours or intervening himself.874 Erysichthon, on the other hand, is the definition of a bad neighbour, since not only he would not be able to prevent the ox from being lost, but on the contrary, he himself may be a threat to its safety, as he may eat it; thus Callimachus in his portrayal of hungry Erysichthon concretises the Hesiodic idea of a bad neighbour.875

872 See e.g. Pind. Nem. 7.86-89; Soph. Ant. 373-375; Pl. Leg. 3.696b. The idea of the bad neighbour occurs elsewhere in Callimachus, such is in the instances of Cercyon in the Hecale (fr. 49.10 Hollis = fr. 294 Pf.) and the mice in Molorchus’ house in the Victoria Berenices (Aet. 177 Pf. = SH 259.12). See Reinsch-Werner (1976), 374. 873 Hes. Op. 346-348: πῆμα κακὸς γείτων, ὅσσον τ᾽ ἀγαθὸς μέγ᾽ ὄνειαρ ἔμμορέ τοι τιμῆς, ὅς τ᾽ ἔμμορε γείτονος ἐσθλοῦ οὐδ᾽ ἂν βοῦς ἀπόλοιτ᾽, εἰ μὴ γείτων κακὸς εἴη. See Reinsch-Werner (1976), 372; Hunter (1992), 30-31. The close relationship between the Works and Days and Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter is thoroughly demonstrated in Reinsch-Werner’s analysis of the lexical and thematic correspondences of the two poems; see ibid., 210-229, 371-373. 874 West (1978), 244. 875 Hunter (1992), 31.

190

Furthermore, the notion that a person who is hateful to Demeter is a bad neighbour evokes in reverse the Hesiodic doctrine that a man who works is hated by

Hunger but loved by Demeter,876 exemplified in Erysichthon’s character.877

According to Hesiod, a man must cut trees and use the timber to make a plough and work,878 since both gods and men are angry with a man who lives idly, eating and not working, wasting the labour of others like the drones that exploit the labour of bees.879 Erysichthon is precisely the man that Hesiod advises Perses to avoid becoming, as the reason he attempts to cut down Demeter’s grove is to use the timber to build a banquet hall where he would have constant and excessive banquets with his friends. Additionally, Hesiod mentions that hunger and disaster never approach a man who is just,880 while a whole city may suffer famine and plague through a single man who transgresses and devises evil plans.881 All these apply to Erysichthon, since he commits a transgression against a goddess – as explicitly stated in the verse that introduces the cautionary tale in the first part of the ritual frame –882 by conceiving a

876 Hes. Op. 299-301: ἐργάζευ, Πέρση, δῖον γένος, ὄφρα σε Λιμὸς ἐχθαίρῃ, φιλέῃ δέ σ’ ἐυστέφανος Δημήτηρ 300 αἰδοίη, βιότου δὲ τεὴν πιμπλῇσι καλιήν 877 See Hunter (1992), 30: ‘Callimachus’ poem tells of a Hesiodic ‘worst case’, a man loved by Hunger and hated by Demeter’, while ‘[Callimachus’] narrative is a dramatised exemplification of a central message of the Works and Days – the close link between pious observance and agricultural piety’. 878 Hes. Op. 420-432. 879 Hes. Op. 302-311. Cf. the reference to women in Theog. 594-599. 880 Op. 230-231: οὐδέ ποτ’ ἰθυδίκῃσι μετ’ ἀνδράσι λιμὸς ὀπηδεῖ οὐδ’ ἄτη, θαλίῃς δὲ μεμηλότα ἔργα νέμονται. 881 Op. 240-243: πολλάκι καὶ ξύμπασα πόλις κακοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀπηύρα, 240 ὅστις ἀλιτραίνῃ καὶ ἀτάσθαλα μηχανάαται. τοῖσιν δ’ οὐρανόθεν μέγ’ ἐπήγαγε πῆμα Κρονίων, λιμὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ λοιμόν, ἀποφθινύθουσι δὲ λαοί. See Giuseppetti (2012), 116 n. 59. 882 H. 6.22: ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας ἀλέηται This is modelled on the last verse of the Work and Days, v. 828: ὄρνιθας κρίνων καὶ ὑπερβασίας ἀλεείνων.

191 bad idea,883 while his punishment, although initially afflicted on himself only, eventually results in the demise of his entire oikos.884

The Hesiodic resonances in the Hymn to Demeter have been explained mainly on the basis of the moralistic and didactic character of the cautionary tale,885 while Sistakou, who has recently re-examined the ‘Hesiodic’ passages in

Callimachus, notes that Erysichthon’s myth evokes the contrast ‘between the moral integrity of the man of labour and the ethical corruption of the New Man’, as it is portrayed in Hesiod’s Works and Days.886 For her argumentation she adopts

Edwards’ view that the Works and Days comprise a praise of the archaic village

(Ascra) and its values – more closely associated ith as opposed to the newly emerged polis (Thespiae).887 She thus interprets Erysichthon’s actions as being motivated by his intention to follow an ‘urbanised’ lifestyle, which comically contradicts his rustic profile, and for that reason he is punished by Demeter, the agricultural goddess par

See West (1969), 8; Reinsch-Werner (1976), 216-217; Hopkinson (1984), 99; Hunter (1992), 30 with n. 59; Van Tress (2004), 170; Sistakou (2009), 248-249. 883 H. 6.31-32: ὅκα Τριοπίδαισιν ὁ δεξιὸς ἄχθετο δαίμων, τουτάκις ἁ χείρων Ἐρυσίχθονος ἅψατο βωλά· According to these lines, the ‘right daemon’ got angry with the house of Triopas and Erysichthon was inflicted by a bad will. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1924), II 32 n. 1, considered that this is a reference to the good and the bad daemon which are resident in one’s mind. McKay (1962b), 89-90, adopted this view and further argued that the good daemon deserted Erysichthon, leaving him at the mercy of his own mind, therefore he is responsible of himself. Hopkinson (1984), 107-108, on the other hand, argued that the reference to the daemon here is closer to the concept of ate, since the ἄχθετο alludes to a more active agent. Similarly, Heyworth (2004), 156-157, noted that some responsibility remains to the daemon and the fact that Demeter was the patron deity of the family of Triopas may mean that her anger precedes the incident with Erysichthon. The phrasing in H. 6.32 is possibly influenced by the Hesiodic ἡ δὲ κακὴ βουλὴ τῷ βουλεύσαντι κακίστη (Op. 266); see McKay (1962b), 90; Reinsch- Werner (1976), 219; Hopkinson (1984), 108; Hunter (1992), 30. 884 The idea that one who is hateful to a god may lead to the destruction of the others who are in his circle is present elsewhere in Greek literature as well; e.g. Aesch. Sept. 602-608; Eur. Hel. 1354-1355. See Hopkinson (1984), 171; Vamvouri Ruffi (2004), 124. 885 See e.g. Van Tress (2004), 171; Giuseppetti (2012), 116. On the narrator’s morally evaluative language throughout the hymn, see Morrison (2007), 173. 886 Sistakou (2009), 249. 887 Edwards (2004).

192 excellence.888 Hence, she concludes, by adapting the Hesiodic ideology to a ‘black comedy’, Callimachus creates an ironic representation of both the ‘primitive obsession with agriculture’ and the ‘passé image of the avenging god’ as they are portrayed in Hesiod’s poetry.889

Sistakou’s interpretation is significant in that it (re-)appreciates Callimachus’ hymn within its Hesiodic context, but it is problematic in its details. Although

Erysichthon is indeed presented as resembling the anti-paradigm in Hesiod’s Works and Days in ways that have been presented above, his crime is not as much centred on his refusal to pursue the agricultural ideal by denying his rustic nature,890 as on his disgraceful attitude against the goddess, his inherent shamefulness that is linked with his excessive appetite and his subsequent attempt to dismiss the social norms of restrained eating and commensality on a community level.891 More importantly,

Demeter in Callimachus’ hymn does not appear as an exclusively agricultural goddess who defends the respective way of life, but one who is part of the civic environment within which she regulates social boundaries and human interrelations.

Her placing in a civic setting is demonstrated in the urban ‘markers’ in the ritual frame, that is, the prytaneion, the temple, the rooftops, the streets and the city,892 as well as the civic atmosphere of the Erysichthon narrative (the city’s priestess, the king, the crossroads, the social events), while her role as a regulator of social

888 Sistakou (2009), 250-251. 889 Sistakou (2009), 251-252. 890 It is not clear how Erysichthon’s occupations and interests are ‘rustic’. Sistakou (2009), 250-251, argues that, while the occasions to which Erysichthon is invited belong to the sphere of the bourgeois, the excuses his mother uses emphasise his rustic character which distances him from local aristocracy. However, as noted above, the activities mentioned in his mother’s excuses in fact conform to the aristocratic ideal. 891 This is evident in Erysichthon’s announcement that he will have many and extravagant banquets with his friends only (v. 55). 892 H. 6.128 τὰ τᾶς πόλιος πρυτανήια; 133 ὡς ποτὶ ναὸν; 4 ἀπὸ τῶ τέγεος; 134 τάνδε σάω πόλιν. Cf. Depew (1993), 65: ‘the narrator seems to be very specific about the visual and temporal fix of the scene’. See also Giuseppetti (2012), 104.

193 interactions is exemplified in Erysichthon’s ‘social’ punishment and the narrator’s request to protect her from bad neighbours. Related to this idea is the close link with

Works and Days, where the avoidance of the Limos through working – and thus, by implication, the alignment with Demeter – is closely associated with social acceptance.

This ‘social’ role of Demeter evokes her role as Thesmophoros, that is, as the bringer of thesmoi, meaning ‘laws’,893 which are to be understood both as ritual laws and, primarily, as the laws of agriculture that are directly associated with the introduction of civilisation.894 This aspect of Demeter is referred to in the three topics presented as κάλλιον, ‘more beautiful’, than the myth of Persephone in the first part of the ritual frame: first, how she bestowed fair laws on cities (v. 18), secondly, how she instructed the art of threshing and ploughing (v. 19-21) and, thirdly, how she punishes transgressions (v. 22-23). These are paralleled in the three requests to

Demeter in the final part of the ritual frame: first, she is asked to save the city in concord and fertility (v. 134-135),895 secondly, to bring forth a good harvest and feed

893 There have been two lines of interpretation of the epithet Θεσμοφόρος; the first interprets the word θεσμός literally, as ‘what is laid down’ thus referring to the remains of the piglets or seeds or sacred objects carried from the megara to the altars during the festival of the Thesmophoria, while the second understands θεσμός metaphorically, as meaning ‘law’. For the first view, see e.g. Deubner (1932), 44; Burkert (1985), 243; Simon (1998), 19. For the second, see e.g. Parke (1977), 83-84. Regardless of the actual origin of the epithet Thesmophoros, all ancient sources understand it as meaning ‘bringer of laws’; see Kron (1992); Dillon (2002), 80; Parker (2005), 280. For ancient interpretations, see e.g. Diod. Sic. 5.5.2; Lucian p. 276. 25-28 Rabe. Cf. the epithet legifera for Ceres (Virg. Aen. 4.58). 894 See Isocr. Paneg. 28: Δήμητρος γὰρ ἀφικομένης εἰς τὴν χώραν, ὅτ’ ἐπλανήθη τῆς Κόρης ἁρπασθείσης, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς προγόνους ἡμῶν εὐμενῶς διατεθείσης ἐκ τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν, ἃς οὐχ οἷόν τ’ ἄλλοις ἢ τοῖς μεμυημένοις ἀκούειν, καὶ δούσης δωρεὰς διττὰς, αἵπερ μέγισται τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι, τούς τε καρποὺς, οἳ τοῦ μὴ θηριωδῶς ζῆν ἡμᾶς αἴτιοι γεγόνασιν, καὶ τὴν τελετὴν, ἧς οἱ μετασχόντες περί τε τῆς τοῦ βίου τελευτῆς καὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος ἡδίους τὰς ἐλπίδας ἔχουσιν. Cf. Chirassi- Colombo (2008), 18; Stallsmith (2008). 895 This phrase evokes Hymn. Hom. 13: Δημήτηρ᾽ ἠύκομον, σεμνὴν θεάν, ἄρχομ᾽ ἀείδειν, αὐτὴν καὶ κούρην, περικαλλέα Περσεφόνειαν. χαῖρε, θεά, καὶ τήνδε σάου πόλιν: ἄρχε δ᾽ ἀοιδῆς. See Hopkinson (1984), 183; Bing (1995), 33.

194 the cattle (v. 135-137), and thirdly, to be favourable to the person who addresses the request (v. 138), as opposed to the transgressor who is punished by Demeter (v. 22).

The threefold ‘gifts’ of Demeter are reflected in Erysichthon’s narrative:

Erysichthon is a transgressor, the violent earth-render, as his name reveals,896 in full opposition to the first ‘civilised’ ploughman Triptolemus,897 and one who upsets social order; thus, he is punished by Demeter in her role of an orderer of society. It is no coincidence that after the infliction of the punishment, Erysichthon is mute like a baby or an animal, which is in accord with Triopas’ calling him a βρέφος and his prayer to Poseidon to feed him,898 especially when considering that the word he uses for the latter is βόσκε, normally referring to animals (and thus when applied to humans is in a derogatory sense).899 Furthermore, the list of animals Erysichthon eats forms a ‘climax of the inedible’, beginning from the wagon mules and the heifer for the sacrifice to Hestia, leading to the race and war horses and ending with the cat or mongoose (v. 107-110).900 These points indicate that Erysichthon’s opposition to

896 Erysichthon’s name is thought to be formed by the verb ἐρύω which means ‘to rend’, and the word χθών, which means ‘earth’, thus it is explained as the ‘earth-render’ or ‘the one who tears-up the earth’ or the ‘earth-eater’ (‘Erdauffreisser’). Based on this etymology Lycophron refers to Erysichthon as γατομῶν, deriving from γᾶ (γῆ) and τέμνω, ‘to cut’ (Alex. 1396). See Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1924), II 41; McKay (1962b), 38 with n. 4; Hopkinson (1984), 21; Müller (1987), 27 with n. 68. On Triptolemus, see Richardson (1974), 196; Hopkinson (1984), 98; Clinton (1992), 38-49. 897 It has been suggested that Erysichthon’s crime is reminiscent of a group of ‘laws’ thought to have been rendered by Triptolemus at Eleusis, which dictated: ‘honour your parents, celebrate the gods with crops and do not harm living creatures’ (Porph. Abst. 4.22). Erysichthon infringes all three commands: he threatens the goddess-priestess who addresses him as τέκνον, he attempts to destroy Demeter’s grove and plans to have excessive banquets. His punishment corresponds to the doctrine as well, as he acquires excessive appetite for meat alone which leads to the demolition of all the animals in the house, even the one that was appointed for sacrifice to Hestia, while his condition causes humiliation and despair to his parents. On Triptolemus’ doctrine, see Parker (2005), 282 with n. 48. On its association with Erysichthon, see Müller (1987), 36 with n. 109; Ambühl (2005), 185. 898 H. 6.103-104: ἤ οἱ ἀπόστασον χαλεπὰν νόσον ἠέ νιν αὐτός βόσκε λαβών· ἁμαὶ γὰρ ἀπειρήκαντι τράπεζαι. 899 See Hopkinson (1984), 163, who notes, however that the tone in this passage is ‘of utter despair’. cf. Pucci (2007), 67, who notes that βόσκειν suggests bestiality. It is used in a demeaning sense in the Odyssey with regard to Odysseus’ gaster, see e.g. Od. 17.228 (βόσκειν σὴν γαστέρ’ ἄναλτον); 17.558 (γαστέρα βοσκήσεις). 900 H. 6.105-110:

195

Demeter causes him, according to Hunter, to ‘break those distinctions in social behaviour which separate us from the animals’, thus marking the reversal of the process of civilisation and Erysichthon’s subsequent expulsion from ordered society.901 Civilised living is exemplified in the agricultural process over which

Demeter presides, a basic premise of which is human collaboration, while its outcome, the bread, is the symbol of civilised diet, not only because it represents the team-effort needed for its creation,902 but also because it is a divisible kind of food, the ‘political’ form of nourishment par excellence that allows everyone to have an equal portion.903

The civilising aspect of Demeter as Thesmophoros is directly associated with her role as the orderer and protector of the community, which is best illustrated in the festival of the Thesmophoria, whose primary purpose was to ensure the survival of the community through the promotion of the fertility of the crops and women.904

χῆραι μὲν μάνδραι, κενεαὶ δέ μοι αὔλιες ἤδη τετραπόδων· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀπαρνήσαντο μάγειροι. ἀλλὰ καὶ οὐρῆας μεγαλᾶν ὑπέλυσαν ἁμαξᾶν, καὶ τὰν βῶν ἔφαγεν, τὰν Ἑστίᾳ ἔτρεφε μάτηρ, καὶ τὸν ἀεθλοφόρον καὶ τὸν πολεμήιον ἵππον, καὶ τὰν μάλουριν, τὰν ἔτρεμε θηρία μικκά.’ See Müller (1987), 20; Ambühl (2005), 184. 901 See Hunter (1992), 32. Relevant is the view that the mortals’ dependency on their gaster signifies their ‘animal nature’ which separates them from the gods; see the discussion by Vernant (1990), 194, with regard to Pandora’s myth in Hesiod’s Theogony; he notes that Pandora is called a gaster (v. 599), i.e. an insatiable belly which consumed humans’ bios, and thus symbolises the reason mortals were separated from gods, while the humans’ enslavement to their bellies is justified by Prometheus’ storing the edible parts of the animal in the gaster. Cf. Stoddard (2004), 78-79. Another view sees in the dependence on the gaster a symbolism of non-social behaviour, opposed to the civilised way of life in communities; see Svenbro (1976), 50-59; Thalmann (1984), 144-146. 902 See Parker (200), 280 with n. 45. He further argues (ibid., 280-282) that the collaboration needed in agriculture is a prerequisite for collaboration on a social level, as indicated in the rite of the three sacred ploughings performed near the time of the Thesmophoria in Athens, where the Bouzyges articulated curses against those who had antisocial behaviour, such as refusing to share fire or water or helping someone to find his way or leaving a corpse unburied. 903 Chirassi Colombo (2008), 18. On the civilising aspect of Demeter, see also the myth of the Melissai recorded by Mnaseas of Patara, mentioned in chapter 5, p. 117-118. 904 The first was exemplified in the ritual during which the remains of the pigs sacrificed were placed in the megara in order to be brought up at some point later and be used by farmers as a substance guaranteeing good harvest. The second is indicated by the naming of the third day of the festival as Καλλιγένεια, that is, the goddess of the ‘beautiful offspring’. On the Thesmophoria festival, see

196

The importance of the Thesmophoria for the guarantee of the community’s welfare is best exemplified in Athens, where the participants were exclusively married women citizens, i.e. those who were able to produce legitimate children and thus influence the city’s affairs.905 The proceedings of the festival itself had a social-political character, in that the women participants formed an alternative society with its own

‘political’ organisation: the two ἄρχουσαι (analogous to the ἄρχοντες),906 the council, the assembly and, possibly, a court.907

The double aspect of Demeter Thesmophoros as a goddess presiding over agriculture and at the same time ensuring the prosperity of the community is reflected in the location of her sanctuaries, as they are usually situated outside the city walls, i.e. in the intermediate, cultivated space between the city and the countryside, or on the slope of the acropolis, i.e. within the city but not in the civic or residential areas.908 Scholars have argued that extra-urban sanctuaries served to define the city’s boundaries,909 while at the same time they functioned as the places where people from both the city and the neighbouring areas participated in

Farnell (1905), III 75-112, 326-328; Deubner (1932), 50-60; Parke (1977), 82-88; Brumfield (1981), 70-103; Parker (1983), 81-83; (2005), 270-283; Simon (1983), 17-22; Burkert (1985), 242-246; Sfameni Gasparro (1986), 223-283. 905 Parker (2005), 271. See also chapter 5 for the association of the bee, Demeter’s sacred insect and the appellation of the women participants of the Thesmophoria, with the ideal wife. Cf. also Callim. fr. 63 Pf. 906 Isae. 8.19; IG II 2 1184.3. 907 This is reflected in Aristophanes’ play Thesmophoriazousae, where the Thesmophoria is denoted as an assembly (v. 84, 77) involving ‘orators’ (v. 292) addressing the demos of the women (v. 335, 353, 1145) and presenting psephismata (‘proposals’) and nomoi (‘laws’, v. 361), while the women undertake the role of the court by putting Euripides on trial. See Brumfield (1981), 70-103; Kron (1992), 615-620; Bowie (1993), 206-207, 209; Lowe (1998), 149. Faraone (2011) discusses curse tablets found in Demeter’s sanctuaries and suggests that they reflect juridical activity undertaken by women during the Thesmophoria. See also chapter 3, p. 63, on the curse tablets of Cnidus. 908 For instance, the Eleusinion in Athens is located at the foot of the Acropolis; similarly, Demeter’s temples in Thebes and Megara. Outside the city-walls were situated the temple at Agrae where the Lesser Mysteries took place, as well as Demeter’s sanctuaries in Corinth, Paros, Thasos, Smyrna, Troizene, Gela (Bitalemi), Selinus and Cyrene. See Richardson (1974), 250, for more examples and bibliography. Cf. Burkert (1985), 242, 442 n. 3; Cole (1994), 201; (2004), 143; Foley (1994), 52; Dignas (2007), 166. 909 De Polignac (1995); cf. Malkin (1996), who argues that this does not apply to all extra-urban sanctuaries, as different reasons dictate the placement in each case.

197 customary rituals and came into contact.910 Demeter in particular, the goddess of the land par excellence, is distinct for her role in defining territories and functioning as an intermediary between city and countryside,911 a role which is best exemplified in colonial environments.

More specifically, the foundation of Demeter’s sanctuaries in many cases took place almost in parallel with the settlement at new territories, as the promotion of the crops’ fertility was a basic concern of the colonists.912 Thus it was necessary for them to secure a piece of cultivated land outside the limits of the city, a task which did not always receive the natives’ consent. An extra-urban sanctuary of

Demeter, a goddess whose sphere of influence extended both to the city and the countryside and whose agricultural and chthonic concerns are universal, functioned as an intermediary between the new settlers and local inhabitants.913 All these have been mentioned in chapter 2 with regard to Demeter’s and Kore’s extramural sanctuary in Cyrene, established soon after the foundation of the colony, and whose location outside the city walls is indicative of the colony’s intention to define the territory into which it planned to expand. At the same time, it linked the urban and rural zones and functioned as a mediating place for Cyrene’s population which consisted of locals, colonists and immigrants, mainly Greeks and Egyptians.

910 Kane (2008), 167. 911 Another reason for the placement of her sanctuaries outside the city walls was the fact that initiatory rites took place in her sanctuaries, which dictated that these were situated outside the geographical confines of the community, as initiation presupposed a period of seclusion from social life; see Jeanmaire (1939); Richardson (1974), 250; Foley (1994) 52. Pedley (2005), 46, mentions also the sanctuaries’ placement near cemeteries, functioning as intermediaries between living and dead. 912 Bookidis (2008) examines Demeter’s involvement in mythological and historical stories of colonisation or re-colonisation and suggests that Demeter’s title ἐποικιδία in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth is related to ἐποικεῖν, ‘to colonise’, a role reflected in the colonisation of Sicily and the establishment of Demeter’s sanctuaries on the island. She associates Demeter’s role in the colonisation process with the importance of the growth of crops from the initial stages of the settlement. 913 See De Polignac (1995), 115; Kane (2008), 167.

198

Intermarriage between native women and colonists was an early phenomenon in

Cyrene and Demeter’s cult was soon incorporated into the native’s rituals.914 Hence, the worship of Demeter allowed the blending of women of different ethnicities and social levels, both from the city and from the country.915

It is very possible that Demeter had a similar role in Ptolemaic Egypt, where, as we noted in Chapter 1, her cult was widely diffused, both in Alexandria and in the chora, both among immigrants, themselves a diverse group as they derived from different places of the Greek world, and the native population.916 In chapter 1 it has also been demonstrated that Demeter was from an early stage assimilated with the

Egyptian goddess Isis and that she was worshipped in both guises by Greeks and

Egyptians, functioning as an intermediary between them. I suggest that the emphasis on Demeter’s social aspect in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter reflects her actual role as a regulator of social interrelations, especially within the civic environment where the agricultural concerns are secondary. This idea is supported by the civic setting of the ritual frame, as well as the emphasis on the neighbour; especially the word

ὁμότοιχος creates the impression of a city densely inhabited, where mutual dependencies and the sharing and maintaining neighbourly relationships are in the foreground. One is tempted to view behind this a reflection of everyday life in

914 See White (1987), 67-84; De Polignac (1995), 113-114. 915 See Kane (2008), 168 with references. 916 See Fraser 1972, I 38-54; Scheidel (2004), 24-27, on the different ethnicities in Alexandria.

199

Alexandria,917 one of the first cities of great size in the ancient world whose urban space was carefully organised from the initial stages of its foundation.918

917 Cf. Knight (1993), who acknowledges that Demeter in Callimachus’ hymn is surprisingly placed in the urban space – without being at the same time completely distanced from her agrarian concerns – and associates it with the other gods’ relocations in cities in Callimachus’ hymns (Zeus, Apollo and Artemis); however, she does not believe that that these reflect the great cities in the time of Callimachus, but rather the gods’ close relationship with humans’ everyday life in the polis. Cf. Petrovic (2007), 153. 918 On Alexandria’s city design, consisting of the civic centre (including the agora, the gymnasium and other public buildings), the royal courters and quarters consisting of blocks of houses, see Mueller (2006), 111; Hoepfner and Schwandner (1994), 241. Arrian records that Alexander himself defined the architectural design of Alexandria (Arr. Anab. 3.1.5-3.2.2). See also Scheidel (2004), 1-2, who notes that the emergence of cities of great magnitude is a special feature of the third century BC, with Alexandria and Antioch being the first large metropoleis.

200

Conclusions

What my thesis has demonstrated is that Demeter is a very prominent figure in

Hellenistic poetry, primarily in her role a symbol of new poetics, a symbol however that is also religiously informed. This particular use of the goddess as a metaphor possibly derived from Philitas’ elegiac poem Demeter, whose importance as a model for the other poems dealing with the goddess, despite its fragmentary state, is confirmed. The Hellenistic Demeter concentrates qualities that are crucial for the definition of Hellenistic poetics, such as purity, exclusivity, moderation, refinement.

The fact that these apply to her cultic image was most possibly what led Philitas and the poets who followed him to use Demeter in this particular way.

In the first part of my study I presented the evidence for Demeter’s cult in certain places that are of particular importance for the poems I discussed. My analysis has shown that Demeter was a very prominent goddess in the religious life of all the areas I examined. In Egypt in particular she was among the three most important Greek deities (the other being Dionysus and Aphrodite), while her cult was unique in that it was diffused among both Greek and Egyptian populations. The reasons for her popularity in Egypt lie mainly in her universal character as an agricultural goddess, as well as her assimilation to the Egyptian goddess Isis. These two factors possibly determined the Ptolemies’ attempts to associate themselves with the goddess, evident in cult and iconography. Demeter’s role as a mediating goddess between local and immigrant populations is a feature of her cult in Cyrene as well, an area that shares with Egypt a strong interest in agriculture. Demeter’s cult on Cos is

201 distinct for the special purity requirements of her priestesses and is of particular importance as the topic of Philitas’ Demeter.

The importance of this particular poem for Demeter’s establishment as a poetic metaphor is one of the topics of the second part of my study, where I demonstrate that Philitas’ Demeter is in the centre of a network of poems on Demeter which includes Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, the epilogue of his Hymn to Apollo and Theocritus’ Idyll 7. The common feature in these poems is that Demeter appears in association with images that are traditionally used as poetic metaphors, such as the bee, the spring and the pure water. Furthermore, she appears to function as a regulator of poetic boundaries, in the sense that she presides over poetic inclusion and exclusion, an aspect of her poetic image which is possibly influenced by the exclusive character of her mystery cult. Another element derived from her religion and mythology that informs her poetic image is her close association with fasting, which is associated with the prevalent Hellenistic idea of leptotēs.

Demeter’s role as a regulator of poetic boundaries not only is not contradicted but on the contrary, is reinforced by her role in managing social boundaries, as it is depicted in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter. Among the poems I have examined, this is the one that most clearly reflects religious developments of his time, that is,

Demeter’s prominence as a goddess who controls social interrelations, an aspect of the goddess which is of particular importance in areas such as Ptolemaic Egypt or

Cyrene.

202

Bibliography

Acosta-Hughes, B. (2002). Polyeideia. The Iambi of Callimachus and the Archaic Iambic Tradition, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London Acosta-Hughes, B., Barbantani, S. (2007). ‘Inscribing Lyric’ in P. Bing, J. S. Bruss (eds), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram. Down to Philip, Leiden/Boston, 429-457. Acosta-Hughes, B., Lehnus, L., Stephens S. (2011). (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Callimachus, Leiden. Acosta-Hughes, B., S. A. (2002). ‘Rereading Callimachus’ Aetia Fragment 1’, CPh 97, 238-255. Acosta-Hughes, B., Stephens, S. A. (2012). Callimachus in Context. From Plato to the Augustan Poets, Cambridge. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, E. (1976). ‘Alexandriaca. Studies on Roman Game Counters III’, Chiron 6, 205-239. Alfonsi, L. (1954). ‘Un frammento di Filita’, Aegyptus 34, 211-214. Allen, A. (1983). The Fragments of Mimnermus. Text and Commentary, Stuttgart. Allen, T. W., Halliday, W. R., Sikes, E. E. (1936). (eds). The Homeric Hymns, Oxford. Ambühl, A. (2005). Kinder und junge Helden. Innovative Aspekte des Umgangs mit der literarischen Tradition bei Kallimachos, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA. _____ (2007). ‘Children as Poets: Poets as Children? Romantic Constructions of Childhood and Hellenistic Poetry’ in A. Cohen, B. Rutter, (eds), Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy (Hesperia Supplements Vol. 41), 373- 383. Ameling, W. (1983). Herodes Atticus, New York. Andrews, N. E. (1998). ‘Philosophical Satire in the Aetia Prologue’ in Harder et al., Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, 1-19. Andronikos, M. (1994). Vergina II. The ‘Tomb of Persephone’, Athens. Anti, C. (1929). ‘Sulle orme di Callimaco a Cirene’, Africa Italiana 2, 227-230. Arnott, W. G. (1979). ‘The Mound of Brasilas in Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll’, QUCC 3, 99-105. _____ (1984). ‘Lycidas and Double Perspectives: a Discussion of Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll’, Estudios Clásicos 26, 333-346. _____ (1996). ‘The Preoccupations of Theocritus: Structure, Illusive Realism, Allusive Learning’ in Harder et al., Theocritus, 55-70. Arthur, M. (1977). ‘Politics and Pomegranates: An Interpretation of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter’, Arethusa 6, 7-58. Ashmole, B. (1951). ‘Demeter at Cnidus’, JHS 71, 13‑28. Ashton, S.-A. (2001). Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt. The Interaction between Greek and Egyptian Traditions, Oxford. Asper, M. (1997). Onomata allotria: Zur Genese, Struktur und Funktion poetologischer Metaphern bei Kallimachos, Stuttgart. _____ (2001). ‘Gruppen und Dichter: Zu Programmatik und Adressatenbezug bei Kallimachos’, A&A 47, 84-116.

203

_____ (2004). Kallimachos. Werke. Griechisch und Deutsch, Darmstadt. Bacchielli, L. (1990). ‘I ‘luoghi’ della celebrazione politica e religiosa a Cirene nella poesia di Pindaro e Callimaco’ in P. Gentili (ed.), Cirene. Storia, Mito, Letteratura, Urbino, 5-33. Bagnall, R. S. (1976). The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt, Leiden. Barbantani, S. (2011). ‘Callimachus on Kings and Kingship’ in Acosta-Hughes et al., Companion, 178-200. Bassi, K. (1989). ‘The Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo’, TAPhA 119, 219-231. Bastianini, G. (1996). ‘κατὰ λεπτόν in Callimaco (fr. 1.11 Pfeiffer)’ in F. Adorno, M. Serena Funghi (eds), Ὁδοὶ διζήσιος. Le vie della ricerca: studi in onore di Francesco Adorno, Florence, 69-80. Bean, G. E., Cook, J. M. (1952), ‘The Cnidia’, ABSA 47, 171-212. Benedetto, G. (1993). Il sogno e l’invettiva: Momenti di storia dell’ esegesi Callimachea, Florence. Berger, H. (1984). ‘The Origins of Bucolic Representation: Disenchantment and Revision in Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll’, ClAnt 3, 1-39. Bergk, T. (1868), Anthologia Lyrica, Leipzig. Bernsdorff, H. (2002). ‘Anmerkungen zum neuen Poseidipp (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309)’, GFA 5, 11-44. Berthiaume, G. (1982). Les r les d m geiros. t de s r la o cherie, la c isine et le sacri ice dans la r ce ancienne, Leiden. Biles, Z. P. (2011). Aristophanes and the Poetics of Competition, Cambridge. Bing, P. (1988b). The Well-Read Muse. Present and Past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic Poets, Gottingen. _____ (1993). ‘Impersonation of Voice in Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo’, TAPhA 123, 181-198. _____ (1995). ‘Callimachus and the Hymn to Demeter’, SyllClass 6, 29-42. Boardman, J. (1966). ‘Evidence for the Dating of Greek Settlements in Cyrenaica’, BSA 61, 149-156. Boedeker, D. (1984). Descent from Heaven. Images of Dew in Greek Poetry and Religion, Chico. Bonacasa, N., Ensoli, S. (2000). Cirene. Milan. Bookidis, N. (1993). ‘Ritual Dining at Corinth’ in N. Marinatos, R. Hägg (eds), Greek Sanctuaries. New Approaches, London/New York, 45-61. _____ (2008). ‘The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth and Colonisation’ in Di Stefano, Demetra, 99-105. Bookidis, N., Hansen, J., Snyder, L., Goldberg, P. (1999). ‘Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth’, Hesperia 68, 1-54. Borthwick, E. K. (1966). ‘A Grasshopper’s Diet. Notes on an Epigram of Meleager and a Fragment of Eubulus’, CQ 60, 103-112. Bounas, T. (2008). ‘Die Biene in der griechischen Dichtung von der archaischen Zeit bis zum Ende des Hellenismus’ in Engels and Nicolaye, Ille operum custos, 60- 81. Bowie, A. M. (1982). ‘The Parabasis in Aristophanes: prolegomena, Acharnians’, CQ 32, 27-40. _____ (1993). Aristophanes. Myth, Ritual and Comedy, Cambridge.

204

Bowie, E. L. (1985). ‘Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll, Philetas and Longus’, CQ 35, 67-91. Bowra, C. M. (1936). Greek Lyric Poetry, Oxford. _____ (1964), Pindar, Oxford. Bremmer, J. N. (1983). ‘Scapegoat Rituals in Ancient Greece’, HSPh 87, 299-320. Breton Connelly, J. (2007). Portrait of a Priestess. Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece, Princeton/Oxford. Brink, K. O. (1946). ‘Callimachus and Aristotle: An Inquiry into Callimachus’ ΠΡΟΣ ΠΡΑΞΙΦΑΝΗΝ’, CQ 40, 11-26. Brisson, L. (1976). Le mythe de Tirésias. Essai d’analyse str ct rale, Leiden. Brown, C. G. (1990). ‘Honouring the Goddess: Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter’, Aegyptus 70.1, 173-189. Brown, E. L. (1981). ‘The Lycidas ofTheocritus’ Idyll 7’, HSPh 86, 59-100. Brumfield, A. C. (1981). The Attic Festivals of Demeter and Their Relation to the Agricultural Year, New York. Bulloch, A. W. (1973). ‘Tibullus and the Alexandrians’, PCPhS 19, 71-89. _____ (1977). ‘Callimachus’ Erysichthon, Homer and Apollonius Rhodius’, AJPh 98, 97-123. _____ (1984). ‘The Future of a Hellenistic Illusion. Some Observations on Callimachus and Religion’, MH 41, 209-230. _____ (1985). Callimachus: The Fifth Hymn, Cambridge. Bundy, E. L. (1972). ‘The ‘Quarrel between Kallimachos and Apollonios’. Part I: The Epilogue of Kallimachos’s Hymn to Apollo’, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 5, 39-94. Burkert, W. (1979). Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, Berkley/Los Angeles. _____ (1985). Greek Religion. Archaic and Classical (tr. J. Raffan), Oxford. Cadell, H. (1998). ‘À quelle date Arsinoé II Philadelphe est-elle décédée?’ in H. Melaerts (ed.), Le c lte d so verain dans l’ gypte ptolémaïq e a IIIe siècle avant notre ère. Actes du colloque international, Bruxelles 10 mai 1995, Leuven, 1-3. Cahen, É. (1929). Callimaque et son oeuvre poétique, Paris. _____ (1930). Les hymnes de Callimaque. Commentaire explicative et critique, Paris. Cairns, D. (1993). Aidos. The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature, Oxford. Cairns, F. (1979). Tibullus. A Hellenistic Poet at Rome, Cambridge. Calame, C. (1993). ‘Legendary Narration and Poetic Procedure in Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo’ in Harder et al., Callimachus, 37-55. Calderini, A. (1972-1996). Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell'Egitto greco-romano Vol. I-V and Suppl. I-II, Milan/Bonn. Cameron, A. (1963). ‘The Form of the Thalysia’ in L. Ferrero, C. Gallavotti, I. Lana, A. Maddalena, A. Momigliano, M. Pellegrino (eds), Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni, Turin, 261-307. _____ (1991). ‘How Thin Was Philitas?’, CQ 41, 534-538. _____ (1992). ‘Genre and Style in Callimachus’, TAPhA 122, 305-312. _____ (1995). Callimachus and his Critics, Princeton. Carney, E. (2000). ‘The Initiation of Cult for Royal Macedonian Women’, CPh 95, 21-43.

205

_____ (2011). ‘Being Royal and Female in the Early Hellenistic Period’ in A. Erskine, L. Llewellyn-Jones (eds), Creating a Hellenistic World, Swansea, 195- 220. Casarico, L. (1981). ‘Note su alcune feste nell’Egitto tolemaico e romano’, Aegyptus 61, 121-142. Cassin, E. (1987). ‘Érysichthon ou le vain mangeur’ in M. Detienne, N. Loraux, C. Mossé, P. Vidal-Naquet (eds), Poikilia: Études offertes à Jean-Pierre Vernant, Paris, 95-121. Cessi, C. (1908). ‘De Philitae carminibus quaestiones’, Eranos 8, 117-143. _____ (1914). ‘Sul ‘Telefo’ di Filita’, RIFC 42, 283-288. Chamoux, F. (1953). Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades, Paris. Chaniotis, A. (2004). ‘Under the Watchful Eyes of the Gods: Divine Justice in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor’ in S. Colvin (ed.), The Greco-Roman East. Politics, Culture, Society, Cambridge, 1-43. Cheshire, K. (2008). ‘Kicking ΦΘONOΣ: Apollo and His Chorus in Callimachus’ Hymn 2’, CJ 103, 354-373. Chirassi Colombo, I. (2008). ‘Biografia di una dea: Demeter’ in Di Stefano, Demetra, 15-23. Clarysse, W. (1998). ‘Ethic Diversity and Dialect Among Greeks of Hellenistic Egypt’ in A. M. F .W. Verhoogt, S. P. Vleeming (eds), The Two Faces of Graeco-Roman Egypt, Leiden, 1-13. Clarysse, W., Thompson, D. (2006). Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt. Vol. I People Registers - Vol. II. Historical Studies, Cambridge. Clauss, J. J. (2003). ‘Once upon a Time on Cos: A Banquet with Pan on the Side in Theocritus Idyll 7’, HSPh 101, 289-302. _____ (1990). ‘Hellenistic Imitations of Hesiod Catalogue of Women fr. 1, 6-7 M.- W.’, QUCC 36, 129-140. Clay, J. S. (1989). The Politics of Olympus. Form and Meaning in the Major Homeric Hymns, Princeton-NJ. Clayman, D. (1980). Callimach s’ Iam i, Leiden. Clinton, K. (1988). ‘Sacrifice at the Eleusinian Mysteries’ in R. Hägg, N. Marinatos, G. C. Nordquist (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26-29 June, 1986, Stockholm, 69-80. _____ (1992). Myth and Cult. The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries. The Martin P. Nilsson Lectures on Greek Religion delivered 19-21 November 1990 at the Swedish Institute at Athens, Stockholm. Cole, S. G. (1994). ‘Demeter in the Ancient Greek City and its Countryside’ in S. Alcock, R. Osborne (eds), Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 199-216. _____ (2004). Landscapes, Gender and Ritual Space: the Ancient Greek Experience, Berkley/Los Angeles/London. Cook, A. B. (1895). ‘The Bee in Greek Mythology’, JHS 15, 1-24. Coppola, G. (1935). Cirene e il nuovo Callimaco, Bologna. Couat, A. (1931). Alexandrian Poetry under the First Three Ptolemies (324-22 BC) with a Supplement Chapter by E. Cahen (tr. J. Loeb), London. Cozzoli, A.-T. (1996). ‘Aspetti intertestuali nelle polemiche letterarie degli antichi: Da Pindaro a Persio’, QUCC 54, 7-36.

206

Cox, C. A. (1998). Household Interests. Property, Marriage Strategies, and Family Dynamics in Ancient Athens, Princeton. Craik, E. M. (1980). The Dorian Aegean, London/Boston/Henley. Crane, G. (1986). ‘Tithonus and the Prologue to Callimachus’ Aetia’, ZPE 66, 269- 278. _____ (1987). ‘Bees without Honey, and Callimachean Taste’, AJPh 108, 399-403. Crowther, N. B. (1979). ‘Water and Wine as Symbols of Inspiration’, Mnemosyne 32, 1-11. Cusset, C. (2002). La Muse dans la Bibliothèque. Réécriture et intertextualité dans la poésie alexandrine, Paris. D’Alessio, G. B. (1996). Callimaco: Vol. 1 Inni, Epigrammi, Frammenti; Vol. 2 Aitia, Giambi e altri frammenti, Milan. Davies, M., Kathirithamby, J. (1986). Greek Insects, London. Dawkins, R. M. (1950). Forty-five Stories from the Dodekanese (Edited and Translated from the Mss of Jacob Zarraftis), Cambridge. De Polignac, F. (1995). Cults, Territory and the Origins of the Greek City-State (tr. J. Lloyd), Chicago/London. Degl’Innocenti Pierini, R. (1987). ‘Erisittone prima e dopo Ovidio’, Prometheus 13, 133-159. Del Corno, D. (1962). ‘Ricerche intorno alla Lyde di Antimaco’, Acme 15, 57-95. Demand, N. (1989). ‘Did Knidos Really Move? The Literary and Epigraphical Evidence’, ClAnt 8, 224-237. Depew, M. (1993). ‘Mimesis and Aetiology in Callimachus’ Hymns’ in Harder et al., Callimachus, 57-77. _____ (1994). ‘POxy 2509 and Callimachus’ Lavacrum Palladis: αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς κούρη μεγάλοιο’, CQ 44, 410-426. _____ (2000). ‘Enacted and Represented Dedications: Genre and Greek Hymn’ in M. Depew, D. Obbink (eds), Matrices of Genre. Authors, Canons, and Society, Cambridge/London, 59–80. _____ (2004). ‘Gender, Power, and Poetics in Callimachus’ Book of Hymns’ in Harder et al., Callimachus II, 117-137. _____ (2007). ‘Springs, Nymphs and Rivers. Models of Origination in the Third- Century Alexandrian Poetry’ in A. Bierl, R. Lämmle, K. Wesselmann (eds), Literatur und Religion 2. Wege zu einer mythisch-rituellen Poetik bei den Griechen, Berlin/New York, 141-171. Detienne, M. (1971). ‘Orphée au miel’, QUCC 12, 7-23. _____ (1989) [1979]. ‘The Violence of Wellborn Ladies: Women in the Thesmophoria’ in M. Detienne, J.-P. Vernant (eds), The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks (tr. P. Wissing), Chicago/London, 129-147. Deubner, L. (1932). Attische Feste, Berlin. Di Marco, M., Palumbo Stracca, B. M., Lelli, E. (2004). (eds). Posidippo e gli altri. Il poeta, il genere, il contest c lt rale e letterario. Atti dell’incontro di st dio, Roma, 14-15 maggio 2004, Pisa/Rome. Di Stefano, C. A. (2008). (ed.). Demetra. La divinità, i santuari, il culto, la leggenda. Atti del I congresso internazionale. Enna, 1-4 Luglio 2004, Pisa/Rome. Dickie, M. W. (1994). ‘Which Posidippus?’, GRBS 35, 373-83. Dignas, B. (2007). ‘A Day in the Life of a Greek Sanctuary’ in Ogden, Companion, 163-177.

207

Dillon, M. P. J. (1999). ‘Post-nuptial Sacrifices on Kos (Segre, ED 178) and Ancient Greek Marriage Rites’, ZPE 124, 63-80. _____ (2002). Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, London. Dodds, E. R. (1951). The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkley/Los Angeles. Donohue, H. (1993). The Song of the Swan. Lucretius and the Influence of Callimachus, Lanham-London. Dornseiff, F. (1921). Pindars Stil, Berlin. Dover, K. J. (1971). (ed.). Theocritus: Select Poems, Oxford. Dunand F. (1973). Le c lte d’Isis dans le assin oriental de la Méditerranée. I: Le c lte d’Isis et les Ptolémées, Leiden. _____ (2007). ‘The Religious System at Alexandria’ in Ogden, Companion, 253- 263. Edgar, C. C. (1904). ‘An Ionian Dedication to Isis’, JHS 24, 337. Edquist, H. (1975). ‘Aspects of Theocritian Otium’ in A. J. Boyle (ed.), Ancient Pastoral. Ramus Essays on Greek and Roman Pastoral Poetry, Melbourne, 19- 32. Edwards, A. T. (2004). Hesiod’s Ascra, Berkley. Elderkin, G. W. (1939). ‘The Bee of Artemis’, AJPh 60, 203-213. Elliger, W. (1975). Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung, Berlin/New York. Empereur, J.-Y. (1998). Alexandria Rediscovered (tr. M. Maehler), London. Engels, D., Nicolaye, C. (2008). (eds). Ille operum custos. Kulturgeschichtliche Beiträge zur antiken Bienensymbolik und ihrer Rezeption, Zurich/New York. Erbse, H. (1955). ‘Zum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachos’, Hermes 83, 411-428. Eyre C. (2010), ‘The Ecomony: Pharaonic’ in Lloyd, Companion to Ancient Egypt, I 291-308. Falineve, M. R. (1990). ‘La mimesi in Callimaco: Inni II, IV, V e VI’, QUCC 36 (65), 103-128. Fantuzzi, M. (1993). ‘Preistoria di un genere letterario: a proposito degli Inni V e VI di Callimaco’ in R. Pretagostini (ed.), Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all’età ellenistica. Scritti in onore di B. enti, Rome, 927-946. Fantuzzi, M., Hunter, R. (2004). Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge. Faraone, C. (2011). ‘Curses, Crime Detection and Conflict Resolution at the Festival of Demeter Thesmophoros’, JHS 131, 25-44. _____ (2012). ‘Boubrôstis, Meat Eating and Comedy: Erysichthon as Famine Demon in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter’ in Harder et al., Gods and Religion, 61-80. Färber, H. (1936). Die Lyrik in der Kunsttheorie der Antike, Munich. Farnell, L. R. (1896-1909). The Cults of the Greek States I-V, Oxford. Faulkner, A. (2011). ‘The Collection of Homeric Hymns. From the Seventh to the Third Centuries BC’ in Faulkner, A. (ed), The Homeric Hymns Interpretative Essays, Oxford, 175-205. _____ (2012). ‘Fast, Famine, and Feast: Food for Thought in Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter’, HSPh 106, 75-95. Feeney, D. C. (1991). The Gods in Epic, Oxford. Fehling, D. (1972). ‘Erysichthon oder das Märchen von der mündlichen Überlieferung’, RhM 115, 173-96.

208

Foley, H. P. (1994). The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Translation, Commentary and Interpretive Essays, Princeton. Fontenrose, J. (1981). Orion: the Myth of the Hunter and the Huntress, Berkley/Los Angeles/London. Ford, A. L. (2002). The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece, Princeton. Foucart, P. (1914). Les Mystères d’Eleusis, Paris. Fränkel, H. (1962). Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. Eine Geschichte der griechischen Epik, Lyrik und Prosa bis zur Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts, Munich. Frankfort, H. (1948). Ancient Egyptian Religion. An Interpretation, New York. Fraser, P. M. (1972). Ptolemaic Alexandria I-III, Oxford. Fuhrer, T. (1988). ‘A Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachus’, AJPh 109, 53- 68. _____ (1992). Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Chorlyrikern in den Epinikien des Kallimachos, Basel/Kassel. Furley, W. D. (2009). ‘Philikos’ Hymn to Demeter’, Paideia 64, 483-507. Furley, W. D., Bremer, J. M. (2001), Greek Hymns. Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period. Vol. I: The Text in Translation. Vol. II: Greek Texts and Commentary, Tubingen. Furusawa, Y. (1980). Eros und Seelenruhe in den Thalysien Theokrits, Wurzburg. Gallavotti, C. (1931). ‘Inno a Demetra di Filico’, SIFC 9, 37-60. _____ (1932). ‘Il prologo e l’epilogo degli Aetia’, SIFC 10, 231-246. _____ (1951). Filico, Inno a Demetra, PSI 12. no. 1282, Florence, 140-149. Geissler, C. (2005). ‘Der Tithonosmythos bei Sappho und Kallimachos. Zu Sappho fr. 58 V., 11-22 und Kallimachos, Aitia fr. 1 Pf.’, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 8, 105-114. Gerber, D. E. (1982). Pindar’s Olympian I: A Commentary, Toronto/Buffalo/London. Giangrande, G. (1968). ‘Theocrite, Simichidas et les Thalysies’ AC 37, 491-533. _____ (1974). ‘Kallimachos und Antimachos’, Hermes 102, 117-119. _____ (1980), Scripta Minora Alexandrina I, Amsterdam. Giuseppetti, M. (2012). ‘Two Poets for a Goddess: Callimachus’ and Philicus’ Hymns to Demeter’ in Harder et al., Gods and Religion, 103-129. Gleason, M. W. (2010). ‘Making Space for Bicultural Identity: Herodes Atticus Commemorates Regilla’ in T. Whitmarsh (ed.), Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World, Cambridge, 125-162.. Goldhill, S. (1986). ‘Framing and Polyphony: Readings in Hellenistic Poetry’, PCPhS 32, 25-52. _____ (1991). The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and reek Literat re, Cambridge. Gow, A. S. F. (1940). ‘The Seventh Idyll of Theocritus’, CQ 34, 47-55. _____ (1952). Theocritus Vol. I: Text; Vol. II: Commentary, Oxford. Graziosi, B. (2002). Inventing Homer. The Early Reception of Epic, Cambridge. Griffin, A. H. (1986). ‘Erysichthon-Ovid’s Giant?’, G&R 33, 55-63. Griffin, J. (1992).‘Theocritus, the Iliad, and the East’, AJPh 113, 189-211. Griffiths, F. T. (1979). Theocritus at Court, Leiden/Boston. Grotius, H. (1623). Dicta poetarum quae apud Stobaeum extant, Paris.

209

Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M., Seif El-Din, M. (2004). ‘Life after Death: An Original Form of Bilingual Iconography in the Necropolis of Kawm al-Shuqafa’ in A. Hirst, M. Silk (eds), Alexandria Real and Imagined, London, 133-141. Gutzwiller, K. J. (1981). Studies in the Hellenistic Epyllion, Königstein. _____ (1991). Theocrit s’ Pastoral Analogies: The Formation o a enre, Mandison, Wisconsin. _____ (1998). Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, Berkley/Los Angeles/London. Gutzwiller, K. J. (2005). (ed.). The New Posidippus. A Hellenistic Poetry Book, Oxford. Halliwell, S. (2008). Greek Laughter. A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity, Cambridge. Halperin, D. M. (1983). Before Pastoral: Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry, New Haven/London. Harder, M. A. (1992). ‘Insubstantial Voices: Some Observations on the Hymns of Callimachus’, CQ 42, 384-394. _____ (1998). ‘‘Generic Games’ in Callimachus’ Aetia’ in Harder et al., Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, 95-113. Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., Wakker, G. C. (1993). (eds). Callimachus, Groningen. _____ (1996). (eds). Theocritus, Groningen _____ (1998). (eds). Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, Groningen. _____ (2004). (eds). Callimachus II, Leuven. _____ (2012). (eds). Gods and Religion in Hellenistic Poetry, Leuven/Paris/Walpole MA. Hardie, A. (1997). ‘Philitas and the Plane Tree’, ZPE 119, 21–36. _____ (2003). ‘The Statue(s) of Philitas (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309 Col. X. 16-25 and Hermesianax fr. 7.75-78 P.), ZPE 143, 27-36. Harrison, J. E. (1922). Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, Cambridge. Haslam, M. (1993). ‘Callimachus’ Hymns’ in Harder et al., Callimachus, 111-125. Hatzikosta, S. (1982). A Stylistic Commentary on Theocrit s’ Idyll VII, Amsterdam. Heath, J. (1988). ‘The Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachus’ Bath of Pallas’, ClAnt 7, 72-90. Henrichs, A. (1979a). ‘Callimachus Epigram 28: A Fastidious Priamel’, HSPh 83, 207-212. _____ (1979b). ‘Thou Shalt not Kill a Tree’, BASP 16, 85-108. _____ (1980). ‘Riper than a Pear: Parian Invective in Theokritos’, ZPE 39, 7-27. _____ (1993). ‘Gods in Action: the Poetics of Divine Performance in the Hymns of Callimachus’ in Harder et al., Callimachus, 127-147. Hermann, J. J. Jr (1999). ‘Demeter-Isis or the Egyptian Demeter? A Graeco-Roman Sculpture from an Egyptian Workshop in Boston’, JDAI 114, 65-123. Herren, S. (2008). ‘Fueritne mulier pulcherrima specie Melissa, quam Iuppiter in apem convertit. Die Biene in der antiken Mythologie’ in Engels and Nicolaye, Ille operum custos, 40-59. Herter, H. (1975). ‘Kallimachos und Homer’ in A. Skiadas (ed.), Kallimachos, Darmstadt, 354-375. Heyob, S. K. (1975). The Cult of Isis Among Women in the Graeco-Roman World, Leiden.

210

Heyworth, S. (2004). ‘Looking Into the River: Literary History and Interpretation in Callimachus, Hymns 5 and 6’ in Harder et al., Callimachus II, 139-159. Hinds, S. (1998). Allusion and Intertext. Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge. Hinz, V. (1998). Der Kult von Demeter und Kore auf Sizilien und in der Magna Graecia, Wiesbaden. Hoepfner, W., Schwandner, E.-L. (1994). Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, Munich. Höghammar, K. (1993). Sculpture and Society. A Study of the Connection Between the Free-standing Scupture and Society on Kos in the Hellenistic and Augustan Periods, Uppsala. Hölbl, G. (2001). A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (tr. T. Saavedra), London/New York. Hollis, A. S. (1970). Ovid. Metamorphoses Book VIII. Edited with an Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. _____ (1978). ‘Callimachus, Aetia fr. 1.9-12’, CQ 28, 402-406. _____ (1990). Callimachus. Hecale, Oxford. _____ (1992). ‘Attica in Hellenistic Poetry’, ZPE 93, 1-15. _____ (1996). ‘Heroic Honours for Philetas?’, ZPE 110, 56-62. _____ (2007). ‘Some Poetic Connections of Lycophron’s Alexandra’ in P. J. Finglass, C. Collard, N. J. Richardson (eds). Hesperos. Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth Birthday, Oxford, 276-293. Hopkinson, N. (1984). Callimachus. Hymn to Demeter. Edited with an Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge. _____ (1988a). A Hellenistic Anthology, Cambridge. _____ (1988b), ‘Review of Müller (1987)’, CR 38, 401. Humphreys, S. (1993). The Family, Women and Death: Comparative Studies2, Ann Arbor. Hunter, R. (1989). ‘Winged Callimachus’, ZPE 76, 1-2. _____ (1992). ‘Writing the God: Form and Meaning in Callimachus, Hymn to Athena’, MD 29, 9-34. _____ (1996). Theocritus and the Archaeology of Greek Poetry, Cambridge. _____ (1997). ‘(B)ionic Man: Callimachus’ Iambic Programme’, PCPhS 45, 41-52. _____ (1999). Theocritus. A Selection. Idylls 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, Cambridge. _____ (2003a). ‘Reflecting on Writing and Culture. Theocritus and the Style of Cultural Change’ in H. Yunis (ed.), Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece, Cambridge, 213-234. _____ (2003b). Theocritus. Encomium of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Text and Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. _____ (2004). ‘Notes on the Lithika of Posidippus’ in B. Acosta-Hughes, E. Kosmetatou, M. Baumbach (eds), Labored in Papyrus Leaves: Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309), Cambridge (MA)/London, 94-104. _____ (2006b). The Shadow of Callimachus. Studies in the Reception of Hellenistic Poetry at Rome, Cambridge. Hutchinson, G. O. (1988). Hellenistic Poetry, Oxford. _____ (2008). Talking Books. Readings in Hellenistic and Roman Books of Poetry, Oxford.

211

Huxley, G. (1971). ‘Kallimachos, the Assyrian River and the Bees of Demeter’, GRBS 12, 211-215. IJsewijn, J. (1961). De sacerdotibus sacerdotiisque Alexandri Magni et Lagidarum eponymis, Brussels. Iles Johnston, S. (2012). ‘Demeter in Hermione: Sacrifice and Ritual Polyvalence’, Arethusa 45, 211-241. Jameson, M. H. (1994). ‘Theoxenia’ in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organised by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22-24 November 1991, Stockholm, 35-57. Jeanmaire, H. (1939). Co roi et Co r tes. Essai s r l’éd cation spartiate et s r les rites d’adolescence dans l’antiq ité helléniq e, Lille. Jost, M. (1985). Sanct aires et c ltes d’ Arcadie, Paris. Kajava, M. (2004). ‘Hestia. Hearth, Goddess, and Cult’, HSPh 102, 1-20. Kákosy, L. (1982). ‘The Nile, Euthenia, and the Nymphs’, JEA 68, 290-298. Kambylis, A. (1963). ‘Zur ‘Dichterweihe’ des Archilochos’, Hermes 91, 129-150. _____ (1965). Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik. Untersuchungen zu Hesiodos, Kallimachos, Properz und Ennios, Heidelberg. Kamerbeek, J. C. (1980). The Plays of Sophocles. Commentaries. Part IV. The Philoctetes, Leiden. Kane, S. (2008). ‘Transforming Power: the Use of Statues in the Cult of Demeter at Cyrene’, in Di Stefano, Demetra, 167-172. Kehoe, D. (2010). ‘The Economy: Graeco-Roman’ in Lloyd, Companion to Ancient Egypt, I 309-325. Kerkhecker, A. (1999). Callimach s’ Book o Iam i, Oxford. Kern, O. (1901). s.v. ‘Demeter’, RE IV 2, 2713-2764. Kershaw-Chadwick, N. (1942). Poetry and Prophecy, Cambridge. Kirichenko, A. (2010). ‘Von Delphi nach Kyrene. Dichtung und Religion in Kallimachos’ Hymnus auf Apollon’, WS 123, 37-61. Kleinknecht, H. (1975). ‘Λουτρὰ τῆς Παλλάδος’ in A. Skiadas (ed.), Kallimachos, Darmstadt, 207-275. Klooster, J. (2011). Poetry as Window and Mirror. Positioning the Poet in Hellenistic Poetry, Leiden/Boston. Knight, T. (1988). ἡ καθαρὴ λιβάς: A Study of the Programmatic Unity of the Callimachean Hymns (diss.), Berkeley. Knight, V. (1993). ‘Landscape and the Gods in Callimachus Hymns (‘With Particular Reference to Hymn 3’, PPLS 7, 201-211. Knox, P. E. (1985). ‘Wine, Water, and Callimachean Polemics’, HSPh 89, 107-119. _____ (1993). ‘Philetas and Roman Poetry’, PPLS 7, 61-83. Koenen, L. (1983). ‘Die Adaption ägyptischer Königsideologie am Ptolemäerhof’ in Van’t Dack et al, Egypt and the Hellenistic World, 143-190. _____ (1993). ‘The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure’ in A. W. Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long, A. Stewart (eds), Images and Ideologies. Self-definition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 25-115. Köhnken, A. (1981). ‘Apollo’s Retort to Envy’s Criticism: Two Questions of Relevance in Callimachus’ Hymn 2, 105 ff.’, AJPh 102, 411-422. Körte, A. (1931). ‘Der Demeter-Hymnos des Philikos’, Hermes 66, 442-454. Krauskopf, I. (2005a). s.v. ‘Kanoun’, ThesCRA 5, 269-274.

212

_____ (2005b). s.v. ‘Liknon’, ThesCRA 5, 278-283. Krevans, N. (1983). ‘Geography and the Literary Tradition in Theocritus 7’, TAPhA 113, 201-220. _____ 1993). ‘Fighting Against Callimachus: the Lyde and the Aetia Reconsidered’ in Harder et al., Callimachus, 149-160. Kron, U. (1988), s.v. ‘Erysichthon I’, LIMC IV, 14-18. _____ (1992). ‘Frauenfeste in Demeterheiligtumern: Das Thesmophorion von Bitalemi’, AA 4, 611-650. Kuchenmüller, G. (1928). Philetae Coi reliquiae (diss.), Berlin. Kühn, J.-H. (1958). ‘Die Thalysien Theokrits (id. 7)’, Hermes 86, 40-79. Kuiper, K. (1896-1898). Studia Callimachea I-II, Leiden. Kyrieleis, H. (1975). Bildnisse der Ptolemäer, Berlin. Laronde, A. (1987). Cyr ne, et la Li ye hellénistiq e. Li ykai Historiai de l’époq e rép licaine a principat d’A g ste, Paris. Larson, J. (1995). ‘The Corycian Nymphs and the Homeric Hymn to Hermes’, GRBS 86, 341-357. _____ (2001). Greek Numphs. Myth, Cult, Lore, Oxford. Lasserre, F. (1959). ‘Aux origines de l’ Anthologie: II. les Thalysies de Théocrite’, RhM 102, 307-330. Latte, K. (1954). ‘Der Demeterhymnos des Philikos’, MH 11, 1-19. Lawall, G. (1967). Theocritus’ Coan Pastorals. A Poetry Book, Washington. Lefkowitz, M. R. (1978). ‘The Poet as Hero: Fifth-Century Autobiography and Subsequent Biographical Fiction’, CQ 28, 459-469. _____ (1980). ‘The Quarrel between Callimachus and Apollonius’, ZPE 40, 1-19. _____ (1981). The Lives of the Greek Poets, London. Legrand, P.-E. (1901). ‘Problèmes alexandrins. I: Pourquoi furent composes les Hymnes de Callimaque?’, REA 3, 281-312. Lehnus, L. (1989). Bibliografia Callimachea, 1489-1988, Geneva. Levaniouk, O. (2000). ‘Aithôn, Aithon, and Odysseus’, HSPh 100, 25-51. Lightfoot, J. L. (2009). Hellenistic Collection. Philitas, Alexander of Aetolia, Hermesianax, Euphorion, Parthenius (LOEB), Cambridge MA/London. Livrea, E. (2004). ‘Lycidas and Apollo in Theocritus’ Thalysia’, Eikasmos 15, 161- 167. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1975). Females of the Species. Semonides on Women, London. Lohse, G. (1966). ‘Die Kunstauffassung im VII. Idyl Theokrits und das Programm des Kallimachos’, Hermes 94, 413-425. _____ (1973). ‘Der Aitienprolog des Kallimachos als Reproduktion von Wirklichkeit’, A&A 19, 20-43. Lombardi, M. (1993). Antimaco de Colofone. La poesia epica, Rome. Lowe, N. J. (1998). ‘Thesmophoria and Haloa: Myth, Physics and Mysteries’ in S. Blundell, M. Williamson (eds), The Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient Greece, London/New York, 149-173. Lucchese, K. M. (2009). ‘Landscape Synchesis: A Demeter Temple in Latium’ in Casadio, G., Johnston, P. A. (eds), Mystic Cults in Magna Graecia, Austin, 161-189. Luck, G. (1959). The Latin Love Elegy, London. _____ (1966). ‘Zur Deutung von Theokrits Thalysien’, MH 23, 186-189.

213

Luni, M. (2001). ‘Le temple dorique hexastyle dans le sanctuaire dèsouvert hors de la porte sud à Cyréne’, CRAI 145, 1533-1552. Luppe, W. (1997). ‘Kallimachos, Aitien-Prolog V. 7-12’, ZPE 115, 50-54. Maass, E. (1895). De tribus Philetae carminibus, Marburg. Macurdy, G. H. (1932). Hellenistic Queens. A Study of Woman-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt, Baltimore/London. Maeler, H. (1963). Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars, Gottingen. Malkin, I. (1996). ‘Territorial Domination and the Greek Sanctuary’ in P. Hellström, B. Alroth (eds), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1993, Uppsala, 75-138. Malten, L. (1910). ‘Ein alexandrinisches Gedicht vom Raube der Kore’, Hermes 45, 506-553. Manning, J. G. (2003). Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt. The Structure of Land Tenure, Cambridge. Marinatos, N., Hägg. R. (1993). (eds). Greek Sanctuaries. New Approaches, London/New York. Marshall, F. H. (1907). Catalogue of the Finger Rings, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum, London. Matthews, V. J. (1996). Antimachus of Colophon. Text and Commentary, Leiden/New York/Cologne. McKay, K. (1962a). The Poet at Play: Kallimachos,The Bath of Pallas, Leiden. _____ (1962b). Erysichthon. A Callimachean Comedy, Leiden. Meillier, C. (1979). Callimaque et son Temps. Recherches sur la carrier et la condition d’ n écrivain à l’époq e des premiers Lagides, Lille. Merkelbach, R. (1995). Isis Regina-Zeus Sarapis: Die Griechisch-Ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen Dargestellt, Stuttgart/Leipzig. Meyer, E. (1916-1924). s.v. ‘Triopas’, Roscher V 1118-1125. Miller, S. G. (1978). The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form, Berkley. Minas, M. (1998). ‘Die κανηφόρος. Aspekte des ptolemäischen Dynastiekults’ in H. Melaerts (ed.), Le c lte d so verain dans l’ gypte ptolémaïq e a IIIe siècle avant notre ère. Actes du colloque international, Bruxelles 10 mai 1995, Leuven, 43-60. Montanari, F., Lehnus, L. (2002). (eds). Callimaque. Sept exposés suivis de discussions par Luigi Lehnus, Adrian S. Hollis, Franco Montanari, Peter J. Parsons, Richard Hunter & Therese Fuhrer, M. Annette Harder, Susan A. Stephens, Geneva.. Morelli, G. (1949). ‘Philita di Cos’, Maia 2, 1-13. _____ (1994). ‘Una testimonianza di Cesio Basso su Filico di Corcira’, RFIC 122, 285-297. Moreno, P. (1994). Scultura ellenistica I-II, Rome. Mørkholm, O. (1991). Early Hellenistic Coinage. From the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-188 BC), Cambridge. Morrison, A. D. (2007). The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge. Mueller, K. (2006). Settlements of the Ptolemies. City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistic World, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA.

214

Müller, C. W. (1987). Erysichthon. Der Mythos als narrative Metapher im Demeterhymnos des Kallimachos, Mainz. _____ (1990). ‘Philetas oder Philitas?’ in P. Steinmetz (ed.), Beiträge zur hellenistischen Literatur und ihrer Rezeption in Rom, Stuttgart, 27-37. Müller, S. (2009). Das hellenistische Königspaar in der medialen Repräsentation Ptolemaios II. und Arsinoe II., Berlin/New York. Murray, J. (2004). ‘The Metamorphoses of Erysichthon: Callimachus, Apollonius and Ovid’ in Harder et al., Callimachus II, 207-241. Murray, P. (1981). ‘Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece’, JHS 101, 87-100. _____ (1998). Plato on Poetry. Ion, Republic 376e-398b, 595-608b, Cambridge. Mylonas, G. E. (1962). Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton NJ. Naunton, C. (2010). ‘Libyans and Nubians’ in Lloyd, Companion to Ancient Egypt, 120-139. Newton, C. T. (1863). A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidae (Vol. II, Part II), London. Norsa, M. (1927). ‘Frammenti di un inno di Philikos’, SIFC 5, 87-92. Nowacki, A. (1927). Philitae Coi fragmenta poetica (diss.), Münster. Nünlist R. (1998). Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung, Stuttgart/Leipzig. O’Higgins, L. (2003). Women and Humour in Classical Greece, Cambridge. Ott, U. (1972). ‘Theokrits Thalysien und ihre literarischen Vorbilder’, RhM 115, 134- 149. Pachis, P. (2004). ‘‘Manufacturing Religion’ in the Hellenistic Age: The Case of Isis-Demeter Cult’ in L. H. Martin, P. Pachis (eds), Hellenisation, Empire and Globalisation: Lessons from Antiquity. Acts of the Panel Held during the 3rd Congress of the European Association for the Study of Religion, Bergen, Norway, 8-10 May 2003, Thessaloniki, 163-207. Page, O. L. (1942). Greek Literary Papyri, London/Cambridge. Pakkanen, P. (1996). Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion. A Study Based on the Mystery Cult of Demeter and the Cult of Isis, Helsinki. Pantos, P. A. (1985). Τα σφραγίσματα της αιτωλικής Καλλιπόλεως, Athens. _____ (1987). ‘Berenike II Demeter’, BCH 111, 343-352. Papanikolaou, D. (2009). ‘The Aretalogy of Isis from Maroneia and the Question of Hellenistic ‘Asianism’’, ZPE 168, 59-70. Parca, M. (2007). ‘Worshipping Demeter in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt’ in M. Parca, A. Tzanetou (eds), Finding Persephone. Women’s Rit als in the Ancient Mediterranean, Bloomington/Indianapolis, 189-208. Parke, H. W. (1977). Festivals of the Athenians, Ithaca-New York. Parker, R. C. T. (1983). Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford. _____ (2005). Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford. Paton, W., Hicks, E. (1891). Inscriptions of Cos, Oxford. Payne, M. (2007). Theocritus and the Invention of Fiction, Cambridge. Pearce, T. E. V. (1988). ‘The Function of the Locus Amoenus in Theocritus’ Seventh Poem’. RhM 131, 276-304. Pedley, J. (2005). Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge.

215

Perdu, O. (2010). ‘Saites and Persians (664-332)’ in Lloyd, Companion to Ancient Egypt, I 140-158. Perpillou-Thomas, F. (1993), F tes d’ gypte ptolémaïq e et romaine d’apr s la documentation papyrologique grecque, Leuven. Petrovic, I. (2007). Von den Toren des Hades zu den Hallen des Olymp. Artemiskult bei Theokrit und Kallimachos, Leiden/Boston. _____ (2011). ‘Callimachus and Contemporary Religion: The Hymn to Apollo’ in Acosta-Hughes et al., Companion, 264-285. _____ (2012). ‘Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo and Greek Metrical Sacred Regulations’ in Harder et al., Gods and Religion, 281-306. Pfeiffer, R. (1922). Kallimachosstudien. Untersuchungen zur Arsinoe und zu den Aitia des Kallimachos, Munchen. _____ (1928). ‘Ein neues Altersgedicht des Kallimachos’, Hermes 46, 302-341. _____ (1968). History of Classical Scholarship: Vol. I From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford. Picard, C. (1927). ‘Sur la patrie et pérégrinations de Demeter’, REG 40, 330-369. Plantzos, D. (1996). ‘Ptolemaic Cameos of the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC’, OJA 15, 39-61. Pohlenz, M. (1965) [1911]. ‘Die hellenistische Poesie und die Philosophie’ in H. Dörrie (ed.), Kleine Schriften, Hildesheim, 1-37. Poliakoff, M. (1980). ‘Nectar, Springs, and the Sea: Critical Terminology in Pindar and Callimachus’, ZPE 39, 41-47. Poltera, O. (2008). Simonides Lyricus. Testimonia und Fragmente. Einleitung, kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Basel. Pomeroy, S. B. (1984). Women in Hellenistic Egypt. From Alexander to Cleopatra, New York. Pontes, H. (1995). ‘The Double Dog in Callimachus and Aristophanes’, Philologus 139, 251-255. Poole, R. S. (1892). A Catalogue of the Coins of Alexandria and the Nomes, London. Porter, J. (2007). ‘Lasus of Hermione, Pindar and the Riddle of S’, CQ 57, 1-21. Powell, J. U., Barber, E. A. (1929). New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature. Second Series, Oxford. Prauscello, L. (2011). ‘Mελίβοια: the Chthonia of Hermione and Kore’s Lost Epithet in Lasus fr. 702 PMG’, CQ 61, 19-27. Pretagostini, R. (1991). ‘Rito e letteratura negli Inni ‘dramatici’ di Callimaco’, AION (filol) 13, 253-263. _____ (1995). ‘L’incontro con le Muse sull’Elicona in Esiodo e in Callimaco: Modificazioni di un modello’, Lexis 13, 157–172. Prioux, É. (2008). ‘Le portrait perdu et retrouvé du poète Philitas de Cos: Posidippe 63 A.-B. et IG XIV, 2486’, ZPE 166, 66-72. _____ (2011). ‘Callimachus’ Queens’ in Acosta-Hughes et al., Companion, 201-224. Pucci, P. (1987). Odysseus Polutropos. Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad, Ithaca/London. _____ (2007). Inno alle Muse (Esiodo, Teogonia 1-115), Pisa/Rome. Puelma, M. P. (1949). Lucilius und Kallimachos. Zur Geschichte einer Gattung der hellenistisch-römischen Poesie, Frankfurt am Main. _____ (1957). ‘Kallimachos-Interpretationen. I. Philetas und Antimachos im Aitienprolog’, Philologus 101, 90-100.

216

_____ (1960). ‘Die Dichterbegegnung in Theokrits Thalysien’, MH 17, 144-164. Quaegebeur, J. (1983). ‘Cultes égyptiens et grecs en Égypte hellénistique. L’exploitation des sources’ in Van’t Dack et al, Egypt and the Hellenistic World, 303-324. Raman, R. A. (1975). ‘Homeric ἄωτος and Pindaric ἄωτος. A Semantic Problem’, Glotta 53, 195-207. Ransome, H. M. (1937). The Sacred Bee in Ancient Times and Folklore, London. Raslan, R. K. (1988). ‘Notes on the Cult of Demeter in Roman Egypt’ in B. G. Mandilaras (ed.), Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology. Athens 25-31 May 1986, vol. II, Athens, 211-213. Rawles, R. (2006). ‘Notes on the ‘New Sappho’’, ZPE 157, 1-7. Regner, J. (1941). s.v. ‘Philotera’, RE XX, 1285-1294. Reinsch-Werner, H. (1976). Callimachus Hesiodicus: Die Rezeption der hesiodischen Dichtung durch Kallimachos von Kyrene. Berlin. Reitzenstein, E. (1931). ‘Zur Stiltheorie des Kallimachos’ in E. Fraenkel, H. Fränkel (eds), Festschrift Richard Reitzenstein zum 2. April 1931, Lepizig/Berlin, 23-69. Reitzenstein, R. (1893). Epigramm und Skolion: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der alexandrinischen Dichtung, Giessen. Rice, E. E. (1983). The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, Oxford. Richardson, L. J. D. (1961a). ‘The Origin of the Prefix Bou- in Comedy’, Hermathena 95, 53-63. _____ (1961b). ‘Further Thoughts on Boubrostis’, Hermathena 95, 64-66. _____ (1961c). ‘Mycenean ΒΟΥΒΡΩΣΤΙΣ’, BICS 8, 15-22. Richardson, N. J. (1974). The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford. _____ (1985). ‘Pindar and Later Literary Criticism in Antiquity’, PLLS 5 (1985), 383-401. Ridgway, B. S. (1990). Hellenistic Sculpture I. The Styles of ca. 331-200 BC, Bristol. Robertson, N. (1984). ‘The Ritual Background of the Erysichthon Story’, AJPh 105, 369-408. _____ (1998). ‘The Two Processions to Eleusis and the Program of the Mysteries’, AJPh 119, 547-575. Ronchi, G. (1974). Lexicon theonymon rerumque sacrarum et divinarum ad Aegyptum pertinentium quae in papyris ostracis titulis Graecis Latinisque in Aegypto repertis laudantur vol. 1, Milan. Rosen, R. M. (1988a). ‘A Poetic Initiation Scene in Hipponax’, AJPh 109, 174-179. _____ (2007). Making Mockery. The Poetics of Ancient Satire, Oxford. Rosenmeyer, T. (1969). The Green Cabinet: Theocritus and the European Pastoral Lyric, Berkeley. Rotstein, A. (2010). The Idea of Iambos, Oxford. Rowlandson, J. (1998). Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt. A Sourcebook, Cambridge. Rutherford, I. (2005). ‘Mestra at Athens: Hesiod fr. 43 and the Poetics of Panhellenism’ in R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Constructions and Reconstructions, Cambridge, 99-117. Schaus, G. P. (1985). The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya. Final Reports. Vol. II: The East Greek, Island, and Laconian Pottery, Philadelphia.

217

Scheidel, W. (2004). ‘Creating a Metropolis: A Comparative Demographic Perspective’ in W. V. Harris, G. Ruffini (eds), Ancient Alexandria Between Egypt and Greece, Leiden/Boston, 1-31. Scheinberg, S. (1979). ‘The Bee Maidens of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes’, HSPh 83, 1-28. Schipporeit, S. (2008). ‘Enna and Eleusis’ in Di Stefano, Demetra, 41-46. _____ (2005). s.v. ‘Kalathos’, ThesCRA 5, 265-269. Schmitt Pantel, P. (1992). La cité au banquet, Rome. Schmitz, T. (1999). ‘‘I Hate All Common Things’: The Reader’s Role in Callimachus’ Aetia Prologue’, HSPh 99, 151-178. Schwinge, E.-R. (1988). ‘Review of Müller (1987)’, GGA 240, 173-183. Scodel, R. (1980). ‘Hesiod Redivivus’, GRBS 21, 301-320. Segal, C. (1974a). ‘Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll and Lycidas’, WS 8, 20-79. _____ (1974b). ‘Simichidas’ Modesty: Theocritus Idyll 7.44’, AJPh 95, 128-136. _____ (1975). ‘Landscape Into Myth: Theocritus’ Bucolic Poetry’ in A. J. Boyle (ed.), Ancient Pastoral. Ramus Essays on Greek and Roman Pastoral Poetry, Melbourne, 33-57. _____ (1981). Poetry and Myth in Ancient Pastoral. Essays on Theocritus and Virgil, Princeton. Selden, D. L. (1998). ‘Alibis’, ClAnt 17, 289–412. Sens, A. (2003). ‘Review of Spanoudakis (2002)’, BMR. _____ (2005). ‘Art of Poetry, Poetry of Art: The Unity and Poetics of Posidippus’ Statue Poems’ in Gutzwiller, New Posidippus, 206-225. Serrao, G. (1971). Problemi di poesia alessandrina. I. Studi su Teocrito, Rome. _____ (1979). ‘La struttura della Lide di Antimaco e la critica callimachea.’ QUCC 32, 91-98. Sfameni-Gasparro, G. (1986). Misteri e culti mystici di Demetra, Rome. Sherwin-White, S. (1978). Ancient Cos. An Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Period, Gottingen. Shipley, G. (2000). The Greek World After Alexander, 323-30 BC, London/New York. Sifakis, G. (1971). Parabasis and Animal Choruses. A Contribution to the History of Attic Comedy, London. Silk, M. S. (1974). Interaction in Poetic Imagery with Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry, Cambridge. Simon, E. (1998). Die Götter der Griechen, Munich. _____ (1998). Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary, Wisconsin. Sistakou, E. (2009). ‘Callimachus Hesiodicus Revisited’ in F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, C. Tsagalis (eds), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod, Leiden/Boston, 219- 252. Skempis, M. (2008). ‘Erysichthon der Jäger: SSH 970.22 und Call. Cer. 81-2’, Mnemosyne 61, 365-385. Skowronek, S., Tkaczow, B. (1981). ‘Le culte de la déesse Déméter à Alexandrie’ in L. Kahil, C. Augé (eds), Mythologie Gréco-romaine. Mythologies périphériq es. t des d’iconographie, Paris 17 mai 1979, Paris, 131-144. Slater, W. J. (1969). Lexicon to Pindar, Berlin. Smiley, M. T. (1914). ‘Callimachus’ Debt to Pindar and Others’, Hermathena 18, 46-72.

218

Solmsen, F. (1979). Isis Among the Greeks and Romans, Cambridge (MA)/London. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1979). ‘The Myth of the First Temples at Delphi’, CQ 29.2, 231-251. Spanoudakis, K. (2000). ‘Hesychiana Minima’, ZPE 130, 31-41. Stallsmith, Α. Β. (2008). ‘The Name of Demeter Thesmophoros’, GRBS 48, 115– 131. Steiner, D. (1986). The Crown of Song. Metaphor in Pindar, London. _____ (2007). ‘Feathers Flying: Avian Poetics in Hesiod, Pindar, and Callimachus’, AJPh 128, 177-208. Stephens, S. A. (1998). ‘Callimachus at Court’ in Harder et al., Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, 167-185. _____ (2003). Seeing Double. Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria, Berkley/Los Angeles/London. Steward, A. (2005). ‘Posidippus and the Truth in Sculpture’ in Gutzwiller, New Posidippus, 183-205. Stoddard, K. (2004). The Narrative Voice in the Theogony of Hesiod, Leiden/Boston. Stoessle, (1938). s.v. ‘Philiskos (4)’, RE 19, 2379-2381. Susemihl, F. (1891-1892). Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandriner Zeit Vol. 1-1I, Leipzig. Svoronos, J. N. (1904-1908). Τὰ νομίσματα τοῦ Κράτους τῶν Πτολεμαίων Vol.1-4, Athens. Thalmann, W. G. (1984). Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry, Baltimore/London. Thompson, D. B. (1973). Ptolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Faience. Aspects of the Ruler-Cult, Oxford. _____ (1998). ‘Demeter in Graeco-Roman Egypt’ in W. Clarysse, A. Schoors, H. Wilems (eds), Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years. Part 1, Leuven, 699-707. Thompson, D. J. (1988). Memphis Under the Ptolemies, Princeton. Tigerstedt, E. N. (1970). ‘Furor Poeticus: Poetic Inspiration in Greek Literature before Democritus and Plato’, JHI 31, 163-178. Tobin, V. A. (1991). ‘Isis and Demeter: Symbols of Divine Motherhood’, JARCE 28, 187-200. Tsantsanoglou, K. (2012). ‘The Statue of Philitas’, ZPE 180, 104-116. Ugolini, G. (1995). Untersuchungen zur Figur des Sehers Teiresias, Tubingen. Usener, H. (1902). ‘Milch und Honig’, RhM 57, 177-195. Ustinova, Y. (2009). Caves and the Ancient Greek Mind: Descending Underground in the Search for Ultimate Truth, Oxford. Vamvouri Ruffi, M. (2004). La Fabrique du divin. Les Hymnes de Callimaque à la lumière des Hymnes homériques et des Hymnes épigraphiques, Liège. Van Gennep, A. (1909). Les Rites de Passage. Étude systématique des rites, Paris. Van Groningen, B. A. (1959). ‘Quelques problèmes de la poésie bucolique grecque’, Mnemosyne 12, 24-53. Van Oppen de Ruiter, B. F. (2007). The Religious Identification of Ptolemaic Queens with Aphrodite, Demeter, Hathor and Isis (diss.), New York. Van Sickle, J. B. (1980). ‘The Book-roll and Some Conventions of the Poetic Book’, Arethusa 13 (1980), 13-17.

219

Van Tress, H. (2004). Poetic Memory. Allusion in the Poetry of Callimachus and the Metamorphoses of Ovid, Leiden/Boston. Van’t Dack, E., Van Dessel, P., Van Gucht, W. (1983). (eds). Egypt and the Hellenistic World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 24-26 May 1982, Leuven. Vanderlip, V. F. (1972). The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis, Toronto. Vandorpe, K. (2010). ‘The Ptolemaic Period’ in Lloyd, Companion to Ancient Egypt, I 159-179. Vasunia, P. (2001). The Gift of the Nile: Hellenizing Egypt from Aeschylus to Alexander, Berkley/Los Angeles/London. Verbanck-Piérard, A. (1992). ‘Herakles at Feast in Attic Art : a Mythical or Cultic Iconography?’ in R. Hägg (ed.), The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic and Classical Periods. Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organised by the Swedish Institute at Athens and the European Cultural Centre of Delphi, Delphi 16-18 November 1990, Athens/Liege, 85-105. Vergados, A. (2013). The Homeric Hymn to Hermes. Introduction, Text and Commentary, Berlin/Boston. Vernant, J.-P. (1990). Myth and Society in Ancient Greece (tr. J. Lloyd), New York. Vessey, D. W. T. C. (1971). ‘The Reputation of Antimachus of Colophon’, Hermes, 99.1, 1-10. Visser, C. E. (1938). Götter und Kulte im ptolemäischen Alexandrien, Amsterdam. Vollenweider, M.-L. (1979). M sée d’art et d’histoire de en ve. Catalog e raisonné des sceaux, cylindres, intailles et camées Vol. II, Mainz. Walcot, P. (1978). Envy and the Greeks. A Study of Human Behaviour, Warminster. Warden, P, Oliver, A., Crabtree, P., Monge, J. (1990). The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya, Final Reports IV: The Small Finds. Glass. Faunal and Human Skeletal Remains, Philadelphia. Waszink, J. H. (1974). Biene und Honig als Symbol des Dichters und der Dichtung in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Opladen. Weber, G. (1993). Dichtung und höfische Gesellschaft. Die Rezeption von Zeitgeschichte am Hof der ersten drei Ptolemäer, Stuttgart. West, M. L. (1966). Hesiod. Theogony, Oxford. _____ (1978). Hesiod. Works and Days, Oxford. _____ (1987). Introduction to Greek Metre, Oxford. _____ (2005), ‘The New Sappho’, ZPE 151, 1-9. White, D. (1981). ‘Cyrene’s Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone: A Summary of a Decade of Excavation’, AJA 85, 13-30. _____ (1984). The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Background and Introduction to the Excavations, Philadelphia. _____ (1987). ‘Demeter Libyssa – Her Cyrenean Cult in Light of the Recent Excavations’, QAL 12, 67-84. _____ (2008). ‘Demeter Libyssa II: Another Model for Colonial Cultic Transference’ in Di Stefano, Demetra, 161-166. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1924). Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos I-II, Berlin.

220

Wilkins, J. (2000). The Boastful Chef. The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy, Oxford. Williams, F. J. (1971). ‘A Theophany in Theocritus’, CQ 21, 137-145. _____ (1978). Callimachus. Hymn to Apollo, Oxford. Wimmel, W. (1958). ‘Philitas im Aitienprolog des Kallimachos’, Hermes 86, 346- 354. _____ (1960). Kallimachos im Rom. Die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit, Wiesbaden. Winter, D. R. (1974). Theocrit s’ Thalysia (diss.), Ohio. Winter, E. (1978). ‘Die Herrscherkult in den ägyptischen Ptolemäertempeln’ in H. Maehler, V. M. Strocka (eds), Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.-29. September 1976 in Berlin, Mainz, 147-158. Witt, R. E. (1971). Isis in the Graeco-Roman World, London. Wüst, E. (1939). s.v. ‘Triopas’, RE 13, 168-174. Zagagi, N. (1984), ‘Self-Recognition in Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll’, Hermes 112, 427- 438. Zanker, G. (1980). ‘Simichidas’ Walk and the Locality of Bourina in Theocritus, Id. 7’, CQ 30, 373-377. _____ (1987). Realism in Alexandrian Poetry: A Literature and its Audience, London. Zuntz, G. (1971). Persephone. Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia, Oxford.

221